Two referee reports, one critical, one encouraging. Bad Experience. I sent an email after 5 months of submission and another after 6 months. Hellwig rejected, suggested 2nd tier journal such as ET. Three months. Referees basically thought contribution was too small to merit publishing. Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. low quality and very short referee report Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text. One Referee wrote nonsense, the other was good, the editor added nonsense. Rejection came on Easter morning. 2 very good reports and one poor report. Editor recommended to submit to other journals. fair and efficient process. Reasonable comments from referees. Two careful reports with good feedback. He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. not the fastest experience, but high quality comments from referees and the editor who liked the paper. First decision in 2 months. Helpful comments. Very good reports, very effective handling of the editor. 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 . Okay experience overall, 3 weeks for a two sentence desk rejection which suggested submitting to a more specialist journal, Overall good experience. Very efficient process, better than expected.
Managing the academic job market - Chris Blattman Almost one year later from submission, have no answer about my paper. Good points, though, and overall a good experience. A bit slow but overall a good experience. I will never submit to this journal. Paper is about a politically charged issue, so I would like to think that more than one reviewer should be asked to submit a report. 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 referee report is very good and even show a positive view to my paper. Good reports and no nitpicking on the revision. Also useful comments from the editor. happy with outcome. Reports were not very helpful. Fairly quick acceptance. To avoid. There are some great papers in the journal; I would think it would get a higher impact factor. Terrible screening process at this journal. got the impression that the reviewer did not read the paper and decided to dispute the review, the dispute process took slightly more than 1 month and the new reviewer sided with the old reviewer. Eight months is a long wait though. Quick rejection (Canova, 5 days), professional, very acceptable decision. One was favorable, the other was on the fence. The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. Young is defined by the year of the first publication in any form. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. Amit Khandelwal desk rejected a RCT health paper in 2 days with no specific comment..no refund of submission fee, I do not belong to their club, Very quick turnaround (~4 days), encouraging response suggesting field journals. When pressed, editor said we weren't doing the same things as everyone else. It would be a positive experience if submission were free. Awfully slow for a desk reject, but at least the editor gave a couple of helpful comments and it was clear he'd read the paper with care. However, once the paper was assigned to referees, the speed was normal. All reports are positive. At this point, the editor asked us to review the abstract and the highlights. Overall efficient and fair but demanding process. Very bad experience as referee kept asking for more and more and finally said document was now too long and findings not interesting enough. Two good reports. Editor offers insightful suggestions as well. Very efficiently run journal (at least my experience). We do not need dumb editors!! Very disappointing experience with the journal and refereeing process. They said they could not find reviewers. editing team is real class act. Not enough of a contribution for JPE, suggested AEJs. 14 days to desk reject, worthless generic email that said nothing on why it was rejected, merely that they "get lots of papers. This journal is a joke. Silly comments from AE. writing? Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. Editor was fair, his decision was understandble, but 6 months is clearly too long. They have not released it, sorry. Two useful reports (one with detailed but helpful suggestions), good editor. Low quality comments from Frank Sloan. Bad experience. Journal of the European Economic Association. Good reports - detailed and constructive. Constructive and helpful comments from the co-editor. Reasonable response. Not interested in the topic, acceptable decision. Whole process super quick. Unfortunately the editor decides to reject the paper on the last round because he has concern about the paper. You have to earn it! had no economic relevance and was not worth being sent out to a referee. Quick turnaround time for the first R&R, but very slow for the last round. The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. fast process; only one report who was mainly referencing a single paper (SSRN, not published, single author); no useful feedback, disappointing experience. Very, very disappointed. Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. 1 very good referee reports, 1 mediocre, editor was nice. Reject and resubmit. Editor gave me chance to convince other referee. SHAME on you. 2 weeks. Which.a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject. There's this cute girl who plays guitar very badly in just her bra on YouTube, Hyatt Hotels, Data Scientist- posted one week ago, 982 applicants, Young men reveal why so many of them are single: Dates feel more like job inter, A day in the life of childless single broette, "Just get an industry job" - It's not that simple. 9 months for 1 2-page referee report. After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. Nice reports that improve the quality and readability of the paper. Very good and useful referee reports. Excellent experience. The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. Generic rejection letter from the editor arguing lack of fit. Job Market. They took the paper seriously. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. Incredibly insulting rejection that made it clear the referee had not read past the first 2 pages of the paper. Very good experience. Fast, bad luck with the editor who simply did not seem to see the point of the paper. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, Ore. Nearly 600 will lose their jobs. Explains longish time to first review. Good experience. Candidate Job Market Roster. Other outlet probably more suitable. No meaningful comments. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO) Desk rejected in 10 days. The editor provided one. William A. Barnett is a very professional editor and reviews were helpful. The referee was ideologically opposed to our paper more than anything else. Aarhus University, Department of Economics and Business Economics, School of Business and Social Sciences: Eric Hillebrand http://econ.au.dk/job-market-candidates . Useless reports. Pretty stupid rationale based on lack of methodological innovation. Desk reject after 1 week. relatively fast, but referees totally uninformed of the literature. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. Two very thin referee reports. Very easy suggested an appropriate transfer and levied the submission fees, with editor providing quite helpful comments. One week to accept. desk rejected in 3 days. Desk rejection within two weeks. One excellent referee report, one terrible. 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. 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. Very good experience!
Economics Job Market Updates / Wiki The transfer offer was helpful, though, since we did not have to pay a submission fee in order to send the paper to the other journal. Very useful suggestions by the editor who read the paper carefully. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. Reports submitted within one month. Really improved the paper. things slowed down because of covid. Good report and conditionally accepted with minor revisions. Fit justification. One rubbish review from a referee who had no idea what the paper was about. Just one very low quality report. Referee reports were modestly helpful, though there was very little overlap between what the referees commented on. Finance Job Rumors (489,506) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,795) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,021) China Job Market (103,531) Industry Rumors (40,351) One referee was extremely favourable, the other's comments were needlessly rude and completely hostile. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. Referee reports OK. cannot complaint about reports but could have been faster, bad reports, of the type "i don't like it". UghhhI will probably withdraw the submission, It is the worst experience I have ever had with a journal. One positive, three negative. Tone of the reports harsher than at better journals. Contribution too small. good reports; excellent editor who acts like an additional referee. A very similar paper came out a month after our paper got rejected, new paper's authors are closely tied to this journal. Very useful comments. Reminded several times and after waiting 1 year got one referee report. The editor was good. Good process. Editor decided to reject it. Still my favorite rejection of all time - used Shakespeare in a footnote, and first referee (whose English was subpar) said that the footnote was "very poorly written." Editor appeared to have at least glanced at the paper. Bad process. avoid. Katz rejected my paper before I was done submitting it; suspect time travel. I submitted two papers and both took a very long time to get referee comments from and the sets of referee comments read like they were written by undergraduate students. Useful but demanding referee reports. Two useful ref reports in the first round. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. fast desk rejection within 2 days. One reviewer seemed to think a clean accept, one was 'not really convinced'. Very slow. After 10+ years in a research institution, counless submission, countless rejections, and some papers published in highly ranked journal, this was definitely my worst experience ever. One short and one longer report. Seems as though they did not like the content and were looking for an excuse to reject. 2.5 months to desk reject. It is a disgrace to the profession reflects poorly on the journal. 7 days from first submission to minor revision. Editor mentioned delay is mainly the result of needing to get a second editorial assessment which suggested this paper's arguments are more likely to find a responsive audience in a different journal. The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. Good comments from referee and editor after five months. I suspect a tight club. Referee really helped me to improve this paper with a great report. 1 short and useless report, 1 incompetent (was the reason the paper was rejected) - the referee could not understand that his major criticism was trivial and was dedicated one line in introduction, 1 favorable report. Submission refund. The paper was "with the editor". Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. Serrano handled the manuscript. quality reviewers. Reports detailed and helpful. Apparently the assigned coeditor left and paper got stuck. Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. They should just ask me $60. Job Market. Refs gave some okay minor comments but no big, subtantive critiques. Desk reject within 1 day. Fair rejection. Two entirely reasonable reports. 19 Jun 2023. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small). Strong and professional editors! The senior is useless as s/he was not happy that the paper is against an established theory. Poor referee. Economics Job Market. Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. The other was low quality and made factually incorrect statements that seemed to influence the associate editor's assessment of the manuscript. Desk rejected after 1 month. Seems like a sound reason. Under 2 weeks for a desk reject. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. The paper was a very good fit though. Not surprised to hear that the impact of the journal is going down. Otherwise, great experience. 12 months and waiting. Much better process and better reviewers at JAERE. 4 months with the editor before being sent to referees. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. Editor clearly read the paper. recommend ?that?
EJM - Econ Job Market interesting and polite reports. 2.5 months to get a RR. Editor felt like the requests made by reviewers were too significant to warrant an R&R, but we did eventually expand the study and it was reconsidered as a new submission. both reviewers rejected for different reasons, reports were overall helpful but some comments showed lack of understanding. Fair referee reports, but I had to wait pretty long. Good comments from the referee. Will definitely send again. Used reports from AER. The editor talked about 4 ref reports. Overall, good experience with IREF. Contribution not new enough relative to the existing literature. I am just not part of the club. Two useful reports. The editor said that enjoyed the paper very much but the contributon is not sufficiently broad for a general interest journal as JHR and fits better into a labour journal. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. Reviews were fair. After three months, I received an email from the editor that he still hasn't received the referee report, so he assumed the referee didn't like the paper and therefore he rejects it. They will help to improve the paper. Bad to useless reports after an unacceptably long response time. The law scholar did not like technical thing but I just used. Editor picked reasonable comments, asked to take into account suggestions, accepted the paper after the referees agreed that what I did is reasonable. Too long waiting time. Checked status online after a month to see the outcome. Extremely fast and helpful. Got a rejection within a couple of days without any constructive comment. Appreciate quick reject. Rejected after revision for reasons that had nothing to do with the revision and should've been brought up on the first decision. Still, I lost 7 months overall. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. The referees responded very quickly and with excellent, high quality reports. Editor was kindly respond my email after 6 months, informed me that referees did not respond even after emailing them. Very fast, and really high-quality referee reports, plus the AE's feedback. good reports, great editor who replies promptly to queries. Fast and very polite response. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. Came back to my office at 12:05. Disappointing turnaround for this journal. No comments, but very fast. Comments like "I do not understand the findings of this study" show that the journal is not what it used to be. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. Great experience! Finance Job Rumors (489,527) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,815) Micro Job Rumors (15,246) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,029) China Job Market (103,535) Industry Rumors (40,351) Two reports that are quite detailed. Not a good referee match given papers subject matter and therefore not very useful comments. Clearly done day before deadline. Initially submitted on 2 Aug, we got the rejection six month later. None of the criticism was fatal and most was stylistic. The paper got rejected anyways. The editor informed that she is a cross section econometrician and she did not understand our panel data paper. Chat (0) Conferences. May have a good chance at a higher ranked outlet but if considered speed and diversification then it was a good and correct decision to submit here. Placement Officers: Pete Klenow 650-725-2620 klenow@stanford.edu. Provided very useful comments. All of them are much speedier and you will actually get helpful comments that will improve your paper. Placement Officer: Professor Stefania Garetto, garettos@bu.edu, (617) 358-5887. 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). 8 days for a desk rejection. No feedback from handling editor, No refund. Overall efficient process. The referee did not understand the basic assumption of the model. Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. Within a week with no justification.
PDF Young Stars in Economics: What They Do and Where They Go Comments were helpful. Ass editor wrote some useful comments. Incredibly tough process with three rounds of revisions - first round ended up me writing a response as long as the original paper. Competent referee reports, although one of them extremely hostile. Withdrew July 31, 2017. Rejected with 2 reviews on the grounds of insufficient contribution to literature. Editor read the paper, added some comments of her own. The paper was accepted quickly after revision. Finally, I have now wothdrawn my paper. Not a good fit. Desk reject in a week. editorial team do not respond to email. Good experience. Said the contribution was not enough for a JFE publication. It seems that the referee did not read the paper just pinpointed assumptions he did not like to reject. Absolutely idiotic low-quality comments. Very efficient journal. paper.? Finance Job Rumors (489,486) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,772) Micro Job Rumors (15,235) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,012) China Job Market (103,527) Industry Rumors (40,348) Great experience. One report was very positive, but the second one looked like it was written in ten minutes citing four papers of his own. Editor agreed = reject. Finance Job Rumors (489,470) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,758) Micro Job Rumors (15,233) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,523) Industry Rumors (40,348) 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. 4 weeks for desk rejection is too much. Constructive comments and Nice experimence! Ph.D. Painfully crushing rejection, as all referees agreed it was a good paper, but had some valid concerns about length and possible general interest contribution. Referees did not understand the contribution of the paper. Sounds fair. If you are an employer who would like to post hiring status information for positions at your institution, please contact EconTrack to register. Stay away from JAE. Fast editors. ", Fast response. In 1974, the Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) began printing a periodical, Job Openings for Economists (JOE) (Coles etal. Desk rejected in less than a week. One referee report was fine. Stay away from this journal if you do not have a connection from inside. +6 months for a desk rejection without a single comment. The editor was fair and provided reasons why the paper was rejected. Editor misread the title and barely read the abstract. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. Good communication and seemed very efficient. Mark Ramseyer. Resulted in much better paper. The report had a few good notes but none that really seemed to disqualify the paper from getting an R&R. The editor likes the idea, but things the method is not new, so recommended to a field journal. "Although interesting and competently executed, your study does not contain a sufficient theoretical or empirical innovation that would meet the very high standards of the EER." Due to a "typographical error" in sending me an email, I had to wait an extra month (and after I emailed asking for a status update) to learn of the rejection - wasting time I could have spent submitting it to another journal. Strongly recommend this journal for health economists! First round of referee reports obtained in another 2 months. Desk rejection in 3 days. Very weak report. Best experience ever. RR with major changes, then RR with minor changes, then accepted after 1 week. Amazing turnaround. Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. 1 report half page long. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, excellent experience. Obviously, being turned down after a two-year long process and a very extensive revision is bad for a young author. Rapid desk rejection, with fair comments and advice from editor. Two referee reports: 1 seemed to miss basics of the paper and didn't provide useful insight/comments and the other was exhaustive, insightful, and useful moving forward. Editor: "Far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal". No referee reports. Bad journal. Very fast and the submission fee is relatively cheap and even cheaper for grad students. Very fast reject and they sent my check back. Submitted to conference edition. Two weeks to desk reject. Worst experience so far. the journal is recovering. Horrible experience. 6 months to first response, then a two sentence ref report, one sentence of which was clarified extremely quickly and one that entailed a ton of extra work. Horrible experience. Editor did not catch these oversights. Desk Reject in one week for lack of contribution. Relatively high submission fee. One referee suggested R and R. Other referee rejected (AE and DE supported this). The editor read the paper in great details and added a lot of comments to the referees'. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. I suspect whether Penny Goldberg is competent. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. Very constructive and useful for revisions. Excellent experience. However we had make all of the referee's suggestions and the outcome was not positive. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. The contribution of the paper is not enough for EL! Bigger joke than the article I sent them. Desk reject after 2 months. very thorough referee report, comments were mostly related to theoretical motivation, paper was submitted without much change to JFE and eventually accepted there. Katia Meggiorin. Editor suggested top field, decided not to send to referrees due to "narrowness of topic." Will never submit to this journal again. Would submit again. Very efficient indeed!!!!!!! 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. The editor was quick and helpful. After 12 months the paper was not even sent out to review or rejected despite 10 emails. Candidate Job Market Roster: Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. Process was a complete disgrace. One of the worst experience I have ever had. In the end, the editor reject the article. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). quick. Good experience with helpful AE and reviewer. Editor is a little slow. Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. The AE was gentle and actually read my paper. One was good and one was particularly bad with a lot of non-english expressions. One very useful report from a critical referee, and one mediocre. Desk reject in a few hours with very impersonal email. Garbage journal, not a real journal, avoid. I waited for seven months, only to receive one superficial referee report. I had a paper that was to be revised and the review was very positive. Editor's comments were very useful, like a good referee report. Paper rejected by editor. One of them was very detailed. Referee wrote a short report with easily implementable suggestions, suggesting revision. However, it was relatively fast at least. Gave a quick explanation and said they did a thorough read of the paper. Editor accepted the article within one week. No comment from the editor, 1 referee report by an idiot that just filled three pages with garbage to look like a better referee; other report was better but still not nearly as smart as QJE referees. He said he liked my paper and thought it was inventive. Maybe small sample made it untouchable? Extremely efficient process with good comments by referees. Job Market. basic IV! The saving grace is that it was fast. What a terrible journal. **** this journal. Overall, pretty speedy given my submission coincided with end of year grading season and winter holidays in the US. Placements of Recent Economics Graduates. Overall, fair process. Fast response within one week. 3 months (!) so,? Editor didn't read the paper. Somehow it took a whole year for the referees to write short and horribly useless reports which show they did not even bother to read the introduction. Going into the ninth month with no response. Good reports. 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. Six weeks for response. After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. Slow process (but exactly as advertised) and fair judgment. 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. Third report seemed written by a sage speaking in amharic, most statements were elliptical in nature, and we were left wondering what the referee's point had been. Avoid him. as stated ("within 24 hours") we got an editorial reject claiming the lack of interest for a broad audience. 2 poor quality reports after 8 months of being under review. 2-pages report, few suggestions. The referees gave great feedback to improve the paper. Suggest field journal. These rankings consider only the youngest economists registered with RePEc. They clearly help the author to improve their paper instead of rejecting it without trying to extract the best. Desk rejected within 7 days. Doesn't seem it was read beyond the title. No reply to my e-mail. Editor was super helpful. No comments whatsoever, in an un-signed email with 2 generic sentences, Desk rejected after one week with kind words from co-editor and recommended field journal, Poor justification, pure taste by Debraj Ray. Flores, Jairo. Very unlucky submission: First round Reject and Resubmit. Very tough report on the first RR, extensive changes suggested, though all feasible and mostly all improved the quality of the paper.
World Championship Snooker Tips,
List Of School Prefects And Their Duties,
Articles E