Home Help Search Welcome Guest. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Great experience - referee and editor very helpful. Rejected with one referee report in just under a month. Competent referee reports, although one of them extremely hostile. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. Fast. Revised carefully and resent, then they sent to another editor and another reviewer whose report contradicted the first and was very vague. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. be viewed as too specific. I revised as a new submission based on comments from a previous reviewer at the journal, referee report was short, but demonstrated expertise, could have addressed all of the comments but ultimately rejected under KS. several days. The editor had read the paper and provided guidance. Deadline: 2023-03-06. Overall, it was a good experience. Amazing. No comments, but very fast. Desk reject after two weeks. One reviewer seemed to think a clean accept, one was 'not really convinced'. AE rejected without commenting on referee report, At least a quick report with one good comment that can help to improve the paper, but with the other points highlighted by the referee were discussed in the paper. referees said "nice but not great". If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not). Efficient handling by editor. All editors have lined up to publish their own papers (just see the forthcoming papers, 3 (three!!) overall v good experience. "We are hesitant to publish purely empirical papers" comment could have been boilerplate but seemed uninformative, Exceptionally quick turnaround times. Initially submitted on 2 Aug, we got the rejection six month later. Katz rejected in two hours with comments that seemed to be written for some other paper. Reasonable comments from the referee, extremely fast and efficient process. Referee did clearly said that the main mechanism is not compelling but did not give a single word on why our argument is persuasive or what else we could do to improve. Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. We saw no referee report and only had to deal with editor comments/suggestions. Form letter. Otherwise, efficient process, decent reports. Helpful and doable things. Replied within a week but editor clearly read the paper and identified main points which, however, seemed not important to him to warrant publication in RES. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. Editor said he appreciated the previous paper but seemed to reject this one (which is probably better) since it fits in with a similar literature. desk rejection in 2 weeks. Editor did not catch these oversights. extremely long wait, and a really poor referee report. Very good referee report. If? 2 mildly useful reports. Very long time to receive the first decision (major revision). Two competent reviewers, one slightly hostile, one friendly. Referees ok, not great. Many, many factual errors about the paper. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. Oh well, on to the next journal. Great experience. Emailed every six months never to any response. the referee reports are of good quality, but I think 11 month for a first response is too long, Very quick response. relatively fast, but referees totally uninformed of the literature. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. said it was a matter of fit. Note that some areas need filling in with actual pages. 4.5 weeks to desk reject. The paper was "with the editor". It is probably not surprising that the editor simply failed to understand the theoretical model and the referees had zero understanding of the empirics. Advisors: Robert Seamans (Chair), Gino Cattani, Sinziana Dorobantu, Arun Sundararajan. Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response. OK process, but some reports were useless. Your paper is not fit for public choice try with public economics. submission was in 2017. In terms of rejections this is probably as good as it gets. One very low quality. Top scholars if it comes to RCTs, but no broaded view. Reject. The reviewer recommended accept after seeing the revision. Desk/ref rejected. Actually a nice experience. ~5 weeks. It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. Now? Editor rejected within less than 10 days. good reports. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh, London, Manchester - UK, Predoctoral Fellow Quick rejection (Canova, 5 days), professional, very acceptable decision. The referee checked my citations and offered helpful comments. Editor provided quick and fair comments why the paper is not suitable for the journal. Fast and serious journal. Neither referee is hostile. Horner is a disaster! Helpful comments from referees and editor. Disappointed. Desk rejected within a week. Referees mixed. Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. Very efficient; referee reports are of pretty high quality. Very nice words from the editor but useless referee reports. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. Good reports that were specific and helpful. One referee was OK with almost no comments. We believe this policy serves contributors who are saved months of unnecessary delays. Nice editor. Editor read the paper and gave helpful feedback. Very different than my past experience. 1 Week, Sent with reports (and subsequent updates) from earlier submission, Desk rejected reasonably fast after 2 weeks to submission. 3 week desk reject. Argued lack of fit, dispite publishing a paper on the subject a few months ago, one very short useless report in seven months, 5 months + 125USD for a referee rejection with a report of about 21 lines.SHAME. No value for such a high submission fee. The editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions. Even disappointing outcome, three constructive reports, one of them extremely helpful. R&R in two months. Avoid if you can. major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). Extremely disappointed. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a papers contribution. After 8 months of waiting, got the shortest referee paper ever. The referee was clearly trying to protect his own paper on a related topic; half of the bullet points referred to that paper. Maybe the paper did not merit publication in JMCB but that referee report was really ridiculous. I withdrew the manuscript and will never submit here again. First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. I think the editor may have been waiting on a 3rd report, glad they didn't wait any longer (20 weeks is enough to wait for a reject). Very fast process. Signaling. Faster than I expected (3 months). Never submit to this journal again. Rejected for not general interest, brief comments by editor and a "finance scholar". Very useful referee reports. Two month for two detailed reports. The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made. Paper eventually got accepted at higher ranked journal (!). Editor was really nice. Overall, great experience. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Althoff (Princeton), Bolte (Stanford), Cai (Northwestern), Colon (Harvard), Ederer (Toulouse), Kleinman (Princeton), Lanzani (MIT), Morazzoni (UPF), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Mukhin (LSE AP), Nguyen(MIT), Rivera (Columbia), Sandomirskiy (Caltech), Seck (Harvard), Xu (Stanford GSB AP), https://business.uc3m.es/en/seminars Brogger (CBS); Gabriel (Bonn); Karpati (Tilburg); Ballensiefen (St. Gallen); Mazzola (Erasmus); Terracciano (SFI), Morazzoni (UPF), Giocomo Lanzani, Rui Da, Theis Jensen, Antoine Ferey, Arthur Taburet, Pauline Carry, Marta Morazzoni, Clare Balboni, Suzanna Khalifa, Fedor Sandomirsky, Chao Ying, Vishal Kamat, Chen (Stanford GSB), McCrary (Penn), Rigato (Harvard), Guerreiro (NW), Lauletta (UC Berkeley), Castro (Princeton), Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Cai (NW), Crews (Chicago), Reyes (Berkeley), Muoz-Blanco (Trinity College), Amrico (UBC), Chiara Aina (Zurich); Giovanni Morzenti (Bocconi); Nathan Hancart (UCL); Regina Seibel (Zurich); Vasily Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA); Pauline Carry (CREST); Bruno Conte (U Bologna / UAB); Riccardo D'Adamo (UCL); Hugo Freeman (UCL); Jonas Lieber (Chicago); Alistair Macauley (Oxford); Philippe van der Beck (Ecole Polytechnique); Francesco Mazzola (Rotterdam School of Management); Gabriela Stockler (UAB), Victoria Barone (UCLA), Aina (Zurich), Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA), Conte (U Bologna / UAB), Stockler (UAB), Casella (UPenn). Ok and efficient process - was told at one point that Chirs Pissarides had to approve acceptance our paper because of the subject matter, which seemed implausible. The referees loved it, very positive comments. 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. Then why are we doing all this work?! Will submit again. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines). Submission to a special issue. Worse experience ever. Poor. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. 5 days, paper is too specific for QJE, Helpman suggested another journal. HUMAN HELP: The Placement Chair for the 2022-2023 academic year is Professor Ben Handel, handel@berkeley.edu. Full refund. Rigor of the paper increased greatly because of the refereeing process. Received 2 very nice and 1 okay-ish report. Very impressed with comments received by the co-editor (Mark Armstrong), which were more substantive than the reviewers. Fair and constructive comments. Smooth process and manageable referee report. The rejection was fair but the referee report uninformative and boilerplate. (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. 4 months for a desk rejection, frustratingly slow. Four refereed. A bit slow, but good comments by the referee. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. First experience with this journal. The editor suggested to try a more mainstream Public Finance journal (I think may paper could have fit Public Choice but fair enough I will try another Public Finance journal). Both reviews helpful - one very extensive. Second report little use. Many thanks to the editor for most constructive comments. Took a year for the paper to get accepted. Two horribly low quality reports. Also, did not bother to understand the theoretical contribution. The editor barely read the paper and decided to reject! 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. Neither of the two reviewers seemed t have read the paper. I don't think he/she took a wee bit of pain to find out the context. Desk rejected with 1 sentence after 2 months. and then took another seven months. I ended up presenting the paper at two conferences between the submission and the decision. Thank goodness that there are more journals in health economics started. Fair rejection. No reason provided, in line with the journal policy. Referees' comments were useful. Good experience. Harold Cole was excellent as editor. Much faster than last experience with the journal, same result. 3 months for desk reject with superficial comments is ridiculous. Desk rejected after more than 5 months, avoid, International Review of Applied Economics, receive first response within 2 weeks. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. Editor accepted the paper after we made some modifications recommended by the referee. 2 weeks for desk reject. Desk rejected with short but informative comment within 2 days. however,? Applied Economics was usually getting back to me in 6 months or even more, this time I had great experience. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, excellent experience. Unfair decision. Avoid this journal. One very grumpy referee report. 5 months, disappointing experience. Very short and no relevant comments. Fast and fair. I wouldn't try this again. Two ref reports in 8 days. 1 report ok, the other one awful, Referee clearly did not understand the paper. Odd journal but overall pleased with the result if not every part of the process. 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. Nice words from Editor. The editor does not respond to emails. Paper was poorly read by the referees. Some valid points, but overall Kahn's criticism was thin. No comments about the paper itself. 3 months was a little long to wait, though. Not sure whether it should be called "desk rejection" as the editor said he asked a friend who is an expert in the field to review my paper rather than sending it to referees. Submission is waste of time. Desk rejection after three days. Editor couldn't find referees, rejected and claimed two reports but only one sent. It seems that the last guy didn't read the paper carefully and I wonder how it could take 4month to write such a poor report. Rejected at ECMA, told a great fit at ReSTAT, desk rejected with generic letter after two days (and I'm in the club), 2.5 months for a desk reject with no feedback (labor paper). Revision accepted after one day. Desk rejected within two weeks. Absolutely pathetic. Round 2 also yielded good referee reports too. Good handling by the editor (Reis). 1 useless report, 1 very helpful and 1 okay. Fair decision. Two weeks desk reject. Super fast and clear feedback. Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. Outcome was positive in the end, but I had to follow some nonsense instructions from the referees and the editor. Over half a year for response from one referee who a) had no problems with the methodology, b) liked the writing, and c) thought it had a novel contribution. Two very useful ref reports in the first round. SHAME on you. one positive one negative, editor chose to reject. . She admitted having forgotten about it until 8 months later and sent us a rejection. The editor decided to reject, I am not in the club. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. Took some time due to lots of things to revise, but all the requests were fair. One of my best experiences. paper.? The editor (George Weebly) made inconsistent statements that did not match with the statments in the paper or from the refrees.The referees made good comments. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. 10 days for desk rejection decision. Smooth process. Two useless reports for a paper that has been accepted by another journal of general interest. Young is defined by the year of the first publication in any form. Great experience. Two weeks for a desk rejection. No feedback and no useful suggestion in the rejection letter. Desk reject two days after I submitted the manuscript. 1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. Referee seemed have little idea about the field or didn't read my 7 page paper. RR with major changes, then RR with minor changes, then accepted after 1 week. Editor did not even read the paper correctly. At every round, it took them only 2 months to respond back. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and less than two months in the second round. The editor emailed me after 6 days and said he read and liked the paper. He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. The final version of the proof was more elegant as a result, I am very appreciative of the reviewers and the editor. Did not receive a rejection letter from the co-editor. Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. Two months for desk reject -- no comments given. A grad student could do better! Very slow, 4 months waiting of the revise and resubmit, it's now two months since I submitted in and no word. Helpful reports in general. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. Ref reports of high quality, mention half a dozen suggestions for robustness which perhaps amounted to too much for the editor to let this go to revision. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. Garbage. Would surely submit to it again. Thought already in literature. I am an assistant professor at Universit de Montral. Terrible experience. Conley is a very nice Editor. Desk rejected after one day due to poor fit. 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. Great process, fortunate to make it past desk as LRM grad student, very helpful ref report received 8 days after submission. Suggested Ecological Economics. One single bad report. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. Lots of minor standardized formating requests, then a gap of 10 weeks to get accepted. Very weak report. Good comments from the reviewers. Referee was sharp, thoughtful, and thorough. Very helpful referee reports. Suggested AEJ:AE, RESTAT and top field. The other report also helped in improving the paper. Clear editor had read the paper, helpful comments. Referee didn't think the contribution is significant enough, so straight reject. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy, Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript. Poor and unhelpful referee reports, club journal. Submission fee refund. AER:Insights - Larry Samuelson, Very polite, slightly more than standard rejection letter, saying - not a good fit, although enjoyable. editor obviously read the paper (indicated by reference to appendix figure in the letter); nice and helpful comments. One of the referee reports was of alarmingly low quality. one ok, one very short and superficial referee report. Still not a fan of this journal. 19 Jun 2023. Dest rejected in 2 days. Process was too long given that only minor changes were required on R&R. Seemed not to like the idea of the paper without actually reading it. If the editor tought the paper did not fit the scope of the journal, he should have rejected it at the very beginning of the process, without engaging in a peer-review. low quality and very short referee report Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text. Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). It lists positions at PhD-granting departments (including stat and applied math), and at departments that are research-oriented . So not sure why the editor would say this is "fixable", unless he is trying to say it sucks in a nice way. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. Very fast; useful, reasonably positive report despite rejection. In general, efficient journal, 2 months, 2 good reports & 1 trash report, fair outcome and ok process. 3 reports, very quick. Comments were useful and recommended a tier of journal to try next. One paragraph report when decision finally made. Editor delayed a lot. Contribution too small. Boston University Department of Economics. Bad experience. Paper very close to editor's (Rogerson) field of interest. Friendly email from editor, interesting reports from referees. Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Waited 2 months for the paper to be assigned to an editor. Long process but well worth it! Reasonable referee report. Nice editor. It's the kind of disappointment that makes you stop caring about research. Fair editor. Good reviews by the referee and the AE. Editor clearly read the paper and claimed a referee did too. The reports were largely useless. wanted to reject from the outset. Invited to revise and resubmit the paper. Of these, 90 graduates (72%) chose positions at academic institutions and 38 graduates (27%) chose non-academic . Associate editors are very professional. Excellent experience. After waiting for 9 months, I sent an email to the editor asking about the paper status. Desk rejection would be normal, but the journal has changed dramatically the orientation towards family firms. Good experience. Very Fast. Editor rejected after R&R without providing any referee report (note: journal name has now changed to International Journal of Health Economics and Management, International Journal of Industrial Organization. Good reports, but what a punch in the gut. took the money. Great experience. I withdraw my submission after 15 months of submission and no answer from the editor. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. frustrating, because paper not assigned to the editor who works in my field. Grad student who manages inbox for ed took bad review at face value. All are lengthy and constructive. Spent a week rewriting the paper according to requests of the editor ("put figures in the end of the paper" and such), then got a desk reject. Passed the desk (Turner) in ten days. Good reports. Strongly recommend submitting there. Actually, 57 months in total. Standard comments, paper's topic just not good enough. The other referee was serious however. Campus visits. Slow process (but exactly as advertised) and fair judgment. Got the refund soon after request. Note: previous desk rejected paper there was published in a much better journal. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. Still took 3 months. Referees didn't read the article properly! American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. A UK guy handles my paper and give me a desk rejection after 3 months. Recently Announced. Fast and very competent review. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. Placement Officer: Professor Stefania Garetto, garettos@bu.edu, (617) 358-5887. Fast editorial process. Two referee reports. I knew I shot too high. Desk rejection in 6 minutes with a "pretended" letter, which could be used for any paper. It was quick. Board Threads Posts Last Post; Economics Job Market Threads. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". Do you really understand American history? Very slow and no much reason given for desk rejection. 2 reports minimal work, 1 report some work. About 3 weeks turnaround. Very efficient, good reports. Very quick process! The associate Editor Ali Kutan has rejected the paper. That is not cool. The second time I was told that my results were "not surprising". Form letter. Absolutely disappointed by extremely poor response from the editor (Horioka). One nasty and not helpful review, but two others were very constructive. Not a great experience! This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. Baltagi desk rejected it in 2 days for being lack of novelty. Dual submission to a conference, the submission fee is quite high. First round took 2 months. 3 Reports. Will submit here again definitely but hate Elsevier so much. Positive feedback from the editor. Good comments, made the paper better.
econ job market rumors wiki
general ragdoll chaos emotes