1 Month and 10 days for first decision is too long. Waited 6 months for one report, from which it was clear that the referee hadn't even read the paper properly. Worst experience so far in my career. Although my manuscript wa based on stochastic processes, editor rejected it since they were not expert in applied econometrics. And he did not find the topic interesting. 1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals. Over the past six years, the department has placed a total of 128 graduates in academic, research, and government jobs. At least the turnaround was quick. I suspect a tight club. 2 weeks. An Associate Editor clearly read the paper. Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. Excellent editorial service from Bruno Biais. Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. Until the 1970s, junior economics hiring was largely by word of mouth. [2] [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors . Two sloppy reports, one useful. Efficient process, stuck to advertised timings. Editor read the paper and outlined clear (and fair) reasons for rejection. Would submit again. Unfortunately the editor decides to reject the paper on the last round because he has concern about the paper. Very quick handling but refereeing quality just absurd. This journal has published MANY papers using these methods and policy makers regularly fund these methods. Ref reports both frank and helpful. A fairly high quality report, useful, within 24 days. We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. Editor wrote a few short comments. Good referee reports. A year after submission without result? On the whole very good experience. Editor provided quick and fair comments why the paper is not suitable for the journal. The editor provided one. KG was DE in finance. Overall a good experience that will help the paper! The revision review was quite fast too. Editor read/scanned desk rejected paper. The referee was ideologically opposed to our paper more than anything else. took the money. Paper went multiple rounds over 2 years. Good report, positive rec. 1 reviewer was clearly an expert, 2 others were less thorough than might be expected, one recommended R&R the other did not read the paper was clearly ideologically biased, the editor sided with the latter, Quick process, referees made some good comments, not a bad experience, one positive referee report, one negative referee report. Editor was very reasonable. Three weeks for a desk reject. two positive reports and one strongly negative report; the editor Andrew Street gave me a R&R; after I spent one month writing a 30-page response, the negative referee still argued against my paper based on his misunderstanding of my paper; the editor finally chose to reject my paper based on the comments of this referee without careful reading. The referee report was more appropriate for R&R. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). It took the editor 3 months to write two paragraphs and reject. one positive one negative, editor chose to reject. Another one was sharp. Timely, informed, and critical. a positive experience, all in all. Vastly improved the paper but had to submit elsewhere. Desk rejected in 1 week. Nedless to say I got no referee report even after asking. Revise and Resubmit. Very efficient process, very good comments from both the reviewers and the editor. Ref Reports: I'd say one okay, the other so-so. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. Not for the faint-hearted. Admittedly, they must receive a lot of submissions, but that does not excuse this. A long wait but not very helpful comments. Desk rejected in 25 minutes. Suggested some other journals. AER Insights: Generic rejection without any thought or suggestion. Not very impressed. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. Good comments, helped improve the paper. Second referee made some useful suggestions. A complete discrage. The editor brought in a tie breaker 3rd, who wrote a very terse reject. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list. Pretty helpful reports. He suggested a general interest journal. Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. Editor sat for two months on completed referee report and rejected without adding any comments. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. Good experience. The referees' comments were very much on target and thoughtful. Incredibly tough process with three rounds of revisions - first round ended up me writing a response as long as the original paper. Worst experience ever. Editors keep delaying despite returned reports, seems to be a pattern with this journal. Don't think they even bothered reading the first page. It took them 13 months to tell us that the article was better suitable for a different journal, Generic Desk Reject - Fortunately they only took 2 days. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee. Kind, thoughtful, and brief editor letter. Nice reports. It is a very demanding R&R and we revise the paper a lot according to the suggestions, but it is worthwhile. Accepted after 3 R&R. Perhaps the worst experience ever. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. The structure of the game, the policy and strategy spaces and other concepts are not introduced with sufficient clarity. Surprisingly, she had one-page long useful comments, which helped improve the paper. Obviously, being turned down after a two-year long process and a very extensive revision is bad for a young author. Bad experience waiting for and ultimately receiving two relatively useless reviews for a comment/note (paper < 10 pages including title/abstract page, references, and tables). Low quality comments from Frank Sloan. Only had to face one reviewer in the second round. The editor, one AE and some referees (in the first stage there was only one, completely irrelevant) have insulted my intelligence. It is probably not surprising that the editor simply failed to understand the theoretical model and the referees had zero understanding of the empirics. This is why our profession sucks. One detailed report. Editor read the paper too and added some short comments. Submission fee not refunded. I had much better experience in American Journal of Health Economics. It took 5 months to get a desk reject, with a polite letter from the editor that the paper would be a good fit for a field journal. Unanswered letters to editor by the 6th and 12th months after submission, only got reply after getting in touch to editorial office. fast response but low quality referee reports, fast and reliable journal. Smooth process, a bit too much work for this journal. The editor clearly had a look at least at the introduction and gave encouraging comments. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. Not enough of a contribution for JPE, suggested AEJs. Desk Reject took 4 months. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. Highly recommended. But I'm a nobody. Was not notified by the decision through email, found the decision in manuscript central during a random check. Two of three referees did not read the paper. Paper denounced an error on widely cited paper (unfairly comparing bootstrap vs asypmtotic theory with a nonpivot statistic!). Paper drastically improved through process. Will never submit unless the editor is changed to an economist, Referees did not put much efforts. editor said the paper had too much economics, The editor was very helpful to summarize what he thought should be done from 4 referee reports. Rapid desk reject - editor stated paper was rejected because of applied context (sports), Good reports, led to significantly better paper, Good experience, nice though critical editor, total time to acceptance 10 months. Accepted 1 1/2 weeks after revision was submitted. (Shouldn't these cases be desk-rejected instead of being rejected after 6 months?). I guess I had the luck of being assigned to two business school types with absolutely no idea of the literature that my model belonged to. One useful referee report and one that was not. Response time was decent. Aina (Zurich), Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA), Conte (U Bologna / UAB), Stockler (UAB), Health Economics Labor and Demographic Economics Urban, Rural, Regional, Transportation Economics In, Fan (Stanford), Lepper (Pitt), Mahmood (OSU), Rehbeck (Ohio State AP), Vidart (UConn AP), Liu (Michigan AP), Yoder (Georgia AP), Mathevet (EUI AP), Cox (Yale postdoc), Choi (Princeton), Craig (Yale postdoc), applied microeconomics, econometrics, and/or macroeconomics, Yang (USC) Vidart (UConn AP) Qiu (Penn) Mills (Princeton) Mugnier (CREST), Borusyak (UCL), Ramos (Harvard), Ostriker (MIT), Sharma (MIT), Vitali (UCL), Crews (Chicago), Druckenmiller (RFF), University of California, San Diego (UCSD), Seck (Harvard), Mills (Princeton), Alfonsi (Berkeley ARE), Rivera (Columbia), Idoux (MIT/Wharton AP), Moscona (MIT), Souchier (Stanford), Chen (Stanford GSB), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Vitali (UCL), Ederer (Toulouse), Lanzani (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Miller (Wharton), Vasudevan (Yale SOM), Nimier-David (ENSAE), Pernoud (Stanford), Kwon (HBS), Fleckenstein (Stern), Hampole (Kellogg), Wang (Stanford GSB), Tang (Harvard), Coston (CMU), Singh (MIT), Yong Cai (Northwestern), Yuling Yan (Princeton), Mou (Berkeley), Jahani (Berkeley), Chang (Yale), Moran (Columbia), Uehara (Cornell), Althoff (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Carry (ENSAE), Conlon (Harvard), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Kohlhepp (UCLA), Minni (LSE), Moscona (MIT), Nguyen (MIT), Otero (UC Berkeley), Pernoud (Stanford), Roth (Uni of Cologne), Thereze (Princeton), Vergara (UC Berkeley), Sturm (MIT), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford). Economics Job Market Rumors. The site, commonly known as econjobrumors.com (its full name is Economics Job Market Rumors), began as a place for economists to exchange gossip about who is hiring and being hired in the . Rejection reason: not general interest enough. one ok report, one very hostile. Desk reject in a few days. Reject and resubmit although both referees and AE advised revision. Resubmitted and the editor rejected the paper on the basis of concerns that were never raised before in the process (and are incorrect IMHO). Happy with process. Two very helpful reports and encouraging letter from AE. Overall a good experience! Otherwise, efficient process, decent reports. Desk rejected in 6 hours. Less than 2 months for the decision with 2 reports, which is very quick. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and less than two months in the second round. Two very constructive reports. Good experience. Not sure I'll ever submit something to RED again. Letter gives no mention of reasons for rejection and even unclear on paper's final status. Poor report but good comments from the associate editor, Associate Editor and the reviewer provided excellent feedback, Very fast and easy, but useless reports and editors (which is what I wanted for a quick worthless pub). The referee has read the paper. 1 reviewer R&R, two reject. Poor / no justification for decision. Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). One referee report was very detailed. Ona day later they reected it with a one sentence crappy referee report. Editor just pointed at reports and made no obvious effort to think about the paper. reviewer knew an aspect of the literature and appeared to promote his own unpublished paper under review at the same journal. This was the worst referee report ever. Very helpful referee reports. It seems from this website that this in not uncommon for this journal. Extremely constructive and useful comments, clearly from people from diverse backgrounds who engaged deeply with the paper (2 economists, 1 polsci). Expected a bit better. From the comments it could have been an R&R, at least the referee and editor comments were helpful and will help to improve the paper, Though it is rejcted, I want to express my thankness to the refreee, who provdes a exremly high quality report. Turn down without a single line of comment in both rounds. Just one very low quality report. Saying that the topic is not general enough. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. Very efficient. The literature review was complete! Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. 14 months from submission to publication online. OK process, but some reports were useless. Both referees caught the major issue in the paper and offered great suggestions for moving forward. Held my paper for a full year and rejected it on a split decision with one ref suggesting an RR and the other a reject. Editor was Mogde. Gorodnichenko was nice. It is run by "Kirk", [1] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. Excellent reports. The second time I was told that my results were "not surprising". Very poor quality referee report after waiting for more than 7 months. Good experience. Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. ), Vienna University of Economics and Business, Ceccarelli (Zurich/Maastricht), Pitkjrvi (Aalto), Assistant Professor in Labor, Migration, and Racial Capitalism, Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario), Gallant (Toronto), Sullivan (Yale), Cui (UPenn), Choi (Wisconsin-Madison), Kahou (UBC), Hentall-MacCuish (UCL), Babalievsky (minnesota), Moszkowski (Harvard), Hong (Wisconsin-Madison), Pan (UT Austin), McCrary (UPenn), Gutierrez (University of Chicago), Kwon (Cornell), Zillessen (Oxford), Ba (UPenn), Assistant, Advanced Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor of Economics, E0 -- General F3 -- International Finance F4 -- Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Fin. Constructive referee report. Same referee takes about half an hour to conclude the math is wrong, yet takes 5 months to submit his report. two referee reports. Moderately useful reports. Website | CV Pretty bad experience. reports show referees were serious. Very good referee report. Editor didn't even read the paper and rejected it. Very polite desk rejection. Comments very helpful, editors took time to read the paper and were engaged throughout the process. (As we've seen, courtesy of Raj Chetty and Diamond/Mirrlees, sometimes they split your paper and accept.). Avoid at all costs.. Two referee reports: one decent, one poor. Contribution not general enough suggests Review of Economics and Statistics. Split referees, Adda came down on the side of the negative ones. No feedback from handling editor, No refund. Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work.". Rejected after one round of review despite all referee comments being addressed. Will not submit again. Seriously, avoid this journal. 5 days, paper is too specific for QJE, Helpman suggested another journal. fair decision, Super quick desk rejection because paper uses archive data but isn't really econ hist, 6 months plus to first decision - then substantial time between R&R rounds, with pednatic comments which mostly wanted to remove the economics from the paper to the appendix. Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. Revision accepted three hours after submission. Weird decision as the paper was not far from being accepted at a better journal. Rejected a letter with one referee report but overall experience was good: about 6 weeks, comments sensible will try to implement. Otherwise fine. 12.5 euro (exclusive of VAT) for each hour it sat with them. Would surely submit to it again. Very good experience. Got accepted after 2nd round. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not). Decent referee reports, good turnaround time. No reason given (just lack of fit..), no suggestions to improve, no money back. Editor (frank) did not read the paper and wrote 2 lines arguing that there were many papers addressing similar question (which was not entirely true). Funny thing is Editor endorsed reviewer's response. Highly recommended. Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School, Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO), Majewska (TSE), Seibel (Zurich), Deng (UMD), Lesellier (TSE), Vanhapelto (TSE), Suzuki (PSU), Leroutier (SSE), Lorentzen (BI Oslo), Guigue (CREST), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Bou Sleiman (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Moreno-Maldonado (CUNEF), Khalifa (AMSE), Kondziella (IIES), Merilinen (ITAM); see https://www.helsinkigse.fi/events/category:job-talk, Assistant/Associate/Full Professor - Environmental Economics, Song (USC), Kwon (Cornell), Sileo (Georgetown), Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Hyuk-soo Kwon (Cornell University), Sean McCrary (University of Pennsylvania), Gretchen Sileo (Georgetown), Stephanie Weber (Yale University), Sadhika Bagga (UT Austin), Ricardo Marto (University of Pennsylvania), Martin Souchier (Stanford University). Referees were obviously a bad choice for this topic. Helpful comments from the editor. good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. Also a very kind editorial letter. Desk reject after about 2 weeks; friendly letter, not sufficiently novel enough (which is fair, not my best paper, IJIO 4th shot, paper now at 2nd tier field). Editor was polite. Clearly no effort was put into it. As best I can tell, the purpose is to use a particular modeling framework to illustrate that a trade policies defined in terms of 'import-export' quotas cannot yield a Nash equilibrium of the trade game. Andrew Foster took a full month for a desk without a comment. It is frustrating to get rejected after convincing the referees. Market Design; Organizational Economics; Personnel Economics; Race and Stratification in the Economy; Risks of Financial Institutions ; Urban Economics; .
How Many Chests Are There In Royale High Beach House,
Articles E