Waited 13 months to two mildly positive reports. Tried to block publication in the second round as well but editor overrode. The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it. Very efficient process. Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. One year since submission, no replies to my queries shitty journal. 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. Process was too long given that only minor changes were required on R&R. four reports. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. The submission and revision process was great and timely. Unfair letter from Emi N. Great letters from four referees and three of them are very positive! Very efficient. Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. Rejection came on Easter morning. Desk reject within a few days. useless report from "expert" regurgitating my explicitly stated caveats, B.E. the comment above was for another journals. Contact: hyejin -dot- park -at . 1 week: nice, but no fit with general interest. Referee clearly did not read paper closely because the bulk of his (limited) comments focused on why I don't address an issue that is addressed prominently in the introduction. Clearly a club journal. Very long time for first response. Efficient process, stuck to advertised timings. Armstrong is so much better than Hermalin 6 months for the first R&R (2 referee reports plus a very detailed report from the editor), then 3 months for the 2nd R&R, then the paper was accepted. Overall good experience. One of the referee reports was sloppy, showing inaccurate reading. Editor contributed with some helpful comments as well. Very good reports, very effective handling of the editor. Referee reports were modestly helpful, though there was very little overlap between what the referees commented on. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. Barro says not sufficiently general interest, and advises to try a field journal instead. When he rejected the paper for the Economic Systems, he then asked me to submit the same paper to his journal "Emerging Markets Finance and Trade." That sounds fair to me. Decent reports. Pretty smooth process, with Eric Leeper being very kind and helpful. After 10 months, my manuscript was still listed as "awaiting referee assignment", and no one at the journal would respond to my e-mails about the paper, so I withdrew it. apologize.? Job Market. The other is constructive but not as good. One rejected outright, one offered R&R. Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal. Unhappy with the outcome of course, but pleased with the process and the handling. Bad experience, waste of money and time. The senior is useless as s/he was not happy that the paper is against an established theory. They keep the submission fees, very efficient cash cow! Reasonable decision. Very disappointing experience. One review was good, and helped to improve the paper, the other one (recommended rejection) was raising many peripheral issues. Journal is basically a scam now. Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. Decent referee report, acceptance 3 days after submitting revision. Really bad experience (Midrigan was the editor). Overall good experience. Although I withdrew my article, editor sent me a rejection letter in a very rude manner. Most dishonest rejection. Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal. Would submit again. Good reports. Quality suggestions from all three reports & editor. reports. Worst experience ever. After two rounds all the referee agreed to publish the paper. A black bitch barks at East Europe. Economics Job Market Rumors . When do I give up? Generic desk reject within 2 weeks. Slow moving. It took almost two month for a desk reject. Helpful reports, overall good experience. Desk rejected, one sentence given. One week desk rejection with form letter. Ridiculous report by the most clueless referee who probably spend one hour only to read and review the paper altogether. Pretty good experience. 7 months for two very low quality reports. Fast editors. Recommended field journals Clueless editor thinks results are of narrow interest. submitted 4 years ago, got a response after nearly 2, resubmitted, now waiting more than a year for a result, editor not responsive to queries about the status, look elsewhere before soubmitting in the Economic Modelling, terrible experience, I am thinking about withdrawing. Big fat load of help. Waited 12 weeks for six lines from one ref. 1 month for R&R, 1 week for acceptance after revision submitted. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. desk rejection because it is not a good fit and i am asked to send it to an economic journal --- while i mainly discussed with a very nice sociologist when writing this paper. Drill down into the main traffic drivers in each channel below. It is probably not surprising that the editor simply failed to understand the theoretical model and the referees had zero understanding of the empirics. 7 months for 2 reviews (and one reviewer was already familiar with paper). Perhaps we can call JABO an experimental journal now. Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. Brief comments from the editor. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. Instead, the reviewer says you did not cite a literature that is totally beside the point, the main concept of your paper is not mentioned not even once in that literature. Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. The editor did not even get that the comments were wrong. The equation to be estimated is not well explained and basic econometric issues (e.g., the problems related to the inclusion of lagged dependent variables) are not discussed. Wonderful experience overall.
Could've desk-rejected instead of two useless referee reports. Got the refund soon after request. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. Simply put, the reviewer does not believe in my results (simulations from calibrated macroeconomic model). Two rounds of R&R! my paper was rejected but great comments on how this paper can be improved are made. great referee report, great editor, not so great AE, Two good reports providing many suggestions regarding how I should modify and extend the paper. Referee 2 was completely positive and was clearly knowledgeable of field. One very good referee report, based on which the paper is improved significantly. Mildly positive referees but reject nonetheless. Submitted more than 2 months, still shown the status as "under ADM", 5 months first RR, 5 months second RR, 2 weeks final acceptance. Editor didn't believe our identification. Desk reject in 1 week. 2022 Job Market Candidates . Received 3 high-quality referee reports within 4 months. Clearly no effort was put into it. Bad experience. After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. Seems safe to ignore the submission guideline: "In tables, please report standard errors in parentheses but do not use *s to report significance levels.". Research Assistant (Pre-Doc) Law and Economics. Would submit here again. Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us. Accepted as it is. Soon it became like a bar that doesn't kick out any assholes and now its a collection of assholes who happen to do economics. Useful and encouraging comments from referees, who appeared very interested in improving the paper and offering helpful suggestions to do so. Reject and resubmit although both referees and AE advised revision. 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. Garbage. They will not respond to editorial office inquiries or direct emails to the editors. Fast. Painfully crushing rejection, as all referees agreed it was a good paper, but had some valid concerns about length and possible general interest contribution. UCLA Economics. Great outcome. Two weak reports. Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING. Helpful for resubmission somewhere else. First reviewer excellent. Editor accepted the paper after we made some modifications recommended by the referee. Five weeks, submission to rejection. Overall, great experience. Avoid at all costs. Fair editor. One excellent and positive report. May 2019 - Post-doc, Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at Virginia Tech Carilion, Roanoke, VA. Spring 2020 - Nanjing Audit University, Gulou, Nanjing, China. No applied letter should take 9 months to referee and the fact that editor did not solicit additional reports or nag the referee shows they don't care. instantaneous rejection, however, without any comments, 5 Weeks for a desk reject without comments. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. Comical journal. **** this journal. End of story. Great experience. This journal has published MANY papers using these methods and policy makers regularly fund these methods. The most idiotic referees I've ever seen. Basically max 3-month turnaround from their side at any stage. Editor is very efficient and professional. Waste of time. No input from editor either. Job Market. The editor-in-chief writes, "Although the question you address and your results are interesting, in my view the paper is a poor fit for GEB's readership..". Desk rejected in a few days. A good referee report and very efficient editor. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. But the editor (Kunst) decided to "follow the referee's advice to reject your submission", even though there was no indication of such a recommendation in the RR. One good report and the other mediocre. Desk reject due to lack of scope of the manuscript, Rejected for a lack of contribution. Editor sent a peper to a 3rd ref, which took forever to write another negative report. However, they want to reject whatever you want. Of course we don't like the reports, or editor's comments, but there is some helpful stuff. This post is a continuous work in . Editor agreed to R&R and suggested major changes but then didn't like the resulting paper. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. Generic rejection. Pretty fast, the reports are good. the difference was not economically meaningful. Two very constructive reports. (310) 206-1413. One line "referee report". A waste of 250$ and time. Strongly recommend submitting there. It just decided not to believe the empirical analysis. At the time the editor had still the paper sitting on his desk. WD has become a true shitshow. Very poor handling by editor. First experience with this journal. We give the editors one week to judge the overall contribution and if acceptable send your paper to an associate editor. The editor said that referee is an expert in this field. referee and AE comments, OK at best. For the fee would have been nice if the Editor had written a paragraph about why they rejected. One report after 18 months. Very efficient. I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. So there is zero feedback. One very good report. I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided.
Young Economist Rankings | IDEAS/RePEc - Research Papers In Economics but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. Long process but well worth it! Hostile report stating "I do not belive your assumptions", editor ignored it. Now? The editor's comments were no less helpful and extensive as referees' reports. The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. Desk rejected as outside the scope of the journal. Two month for two detailed reports. DK carefully read and gave constructive feedback. Editor is a insecure joke. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. It took 3 weeks to get a desk reject letter. Bad experience. The editor had good words about the paper but one ref didn't like it, so he rejected it. One useful report, the other poor. Editor should have told him to take a hike much earlier, especially when other refs suggested accept. Quick response. Resubmitted in 2 days, accepted after resubmission in 10 days. Quick -- 3 days after editor was assigned. Comments just so-so. A UK guy handles my paper and give me a desk rejection after 3 months. Saying that the topic is not general enough. cooperative? Kind words by editor, though weird reasoning, nearly a month for an anonymous desk rejection. Overall a good experience that will help the paper! Big lie. Useless reports. Economics Job Market. 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful). I was politely told that I should have cited more JRU papers. Very poor referee reports. Cannot say the paper improved significantly, but it did not get worse either. Revise and resubmit. Editor decided to reject it. Worst experience with a paper submission ever. Clearly scanned the paper, deemed not general enough, and recommended other outlets. The first response took more than I expected, but the referee's comment was very constructive. Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. His own comments were not based on the reports. After revise and resubmit, was rejected, Next year, similar article appeared in the journal authored by one of the associate editors. If? The paper was not a good fit for the journal and another journal was recommended. Editor appeared to have at least glanced at the paper. The editor VanHoose made some good comments though. One weak report, one reviewer that clearly did not read the paper but did not like what he claimed we did and suggested we do other things which did make much less sense and one reviewer that gave comments that were pretty easy to address. editorial team do not respond to email. Two very good reports, one probably written by the editor. Journal of Economics and Finance Education. 1 months for desk reject. Editor's comments were very useful, like a good referee report. I don't think he/she took a wee bit of pain to find out the context. Doesn't seem it was read beyond the title. Very efficient; referee reports are of pretty high quality. low-quality referee reports. Very quick response. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. decent referee reports, overall good experience. Referee report was short and commented on halve of the paper. Costas Meghir responses all submissions. desk rejected after thee months. Two days to desk reject, no comments, just boilerplate. Referees rejected. Referee comments greatly improved the paper, editor was awesome. Slow but good experience overall. 6 months and no feedback from the journal whtsoever. Chiara Paz and Alice Wang. Seems to be a fair process, 13 months for editor to desk reject because the paper has no empirical section, One good report, very constructive, the other one rejecting the paper. One positive review, one negative, referee took the side of the negative. Clear editor had read the paper, helpful comments. topics should probably be closely related to banking. Very clear about what was needed for revision and the 2nd round was only minor comments. Got a rejection within a couple of days without any constructive comment. One report was very positive, but the second one looked like it was written in ten minutes citing four papers of his own. Economic Theory Bulletin. Editor should know better. Had to withdraw after ten months of waiting. Very helpful comments. Editor claimed to have two reports but gave me only one. Fast and friendly. The editor (Sushanta Mallick) rejected it by 'just by looking at the descriptive statistics' (the original words from the decision letter). The paper is now much stronger. Third referee was slow and did not provide public report (he caused the delay). The article went online first very quickly after acceptance, which was nice. Less than 24 hours.Rogert J. Barro was the editor. Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. so,? almost useless and the editor is too slow. "The empirical econometric novelty of the paper is not substantial enough ", Desk rejection within five days / Poor allocation of coordinating editor (microeconometrician for a time series paper), Quick desk rejection after manuscript ID was assigned. Unfortunately the editor decides to reject the paper on the last round because he has concern about the paper. Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days. Rejected for not significant enough contribution. Editor acknowledge that it was a bad draw. Accepted after 3 R&R. Reviewing all the documents, she does not like the paper: rejection with 800 words of blabla. moderately helpful but whole process took too long. Manuscript number assigned at 10AM, rejected by 7PM. Good experience. Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor. Won't be doing that again Actually, it was a Reject and Resubmit because the editor liked the paper, but the reviewer was really harsh and not really understood the paper. Awesome experience. Good strong editors. report and a couple of pretty good ones. econjobrumors.com Top Marketing Channels. Weak editor. 2 months between submission and final decision! Andrew deJong The Effect of Common Ownership on Pricing: Evidence from the Airline Industry . The negative one says there is no methodology novelty. Worst experience ever. The Editor sugested the JIE. The second round of review only took 3 weeks. Editor didn't read the paper. It takes the editor a long time to respond but the comments are very helpful. One very good and helpful report. Very happy with the process, definetly a favorite for future. Comments very helpful, editors took time to read the paper and were engaged throughout the process. My impression is that the editor didn't even bother looking at the paper. Reason: topic/results too narrow with respect to broad audience. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and about two months in the second round. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, Ore. Nearly 600 will lose their jobs. My paper on the "The Impact of MTV's 16 and Pregnant on Teen Childbearing" was quickly accepted due to its relevance and awesome nature. The main tasks of the potential candidates would be to carry . Refs gave some okay minor comments but no big, subtantive critiques. +6 months for a desk rejection without a single comment. Fair referee reports, ref. Even though the outcome is positive, I blame the editor for not selecting competent enough referees to begin with. Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! Great comments from the referees and editor. Editor provided no additional comments. Both refs postive but think the topic is not a good fit for the journal. Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. 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). Also the editor gave us good comments. Overall positive experience. Receive reports from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. Only had to face one reviewer in the second round. Really bad experience! Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. To view archived listings in this job market cycle that are now inactive, check this box View listings from the previous (August 1, 2022 - January 31, 2023) JOE cycle. 8 Days to get a desk reject. Extensive, constructive and mildly positive ref report. Recommended to try other health journals. William A. Barnett is a very professional editor and reviews were helpful. One of the best outlet for phd students. Otherwise, great experience. As we addressed all issues in between and it better fitted EL, it was accepted without revision. Worst experience ever nearly one year just to hear "not much new, therefore reject" 100 bucks for nothing. The paper was not a good fit as it did not he approach does not engage the distinctive public choice literature. The report that was on fence did not understand some of the points made in the paper, as his biggest concern was addressed in the introduction itself. Good reports. I had. Ever. Very inefficient handling process. Surprised at how quickly all went. Fair experience. Good reports. Apparent that editor read the paper. Very helpful referee reports. No surprising, but referee report was sloppy and incorrect. Desk rejected by Sarte in 3 days without comments. Some feasible and some not feasible suggestions. highly unprofessional, the report is not useful, comments make little sense and contradict to the extant literature on the topic. 8 days to desk rejection. Fast process.
Job Market | MIT Economics The referee's main criticism was like "they argued that A is the main point, which is weak. the job market for junior economists. Generic letter saying the paper was not fit to general interest journal. Desk reject after two weeks. It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. 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. At least the turnaround was quick. Overall an excellent experience. Poor and unhelpful referee reports, club journal. Referees did not bother to read the paper. Law School. very efficient process but experience depends crucially on editor. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; . Economics Job Market. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). They changed their system recently and the new system indicated that my paper had not been submitted so I waited 5 months for nothing. Avoid avoid avoid this outlet if you are looking for a serious journal that will follow a fair referee process. The other referee was concerned about the limitations of the identification strategy, but the same strategy has been used in other studies (some are in top field journals). Very efficient. Very fast decisions. Very good journal, with reactive editorial assistant (Sabah Cavalo), and very good and constructive comments.