The editor informed that she is a cross section econometrician and she did not understand our panel data paper. Very helpful referee reports. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). 2 weeks to desk reject. very professional; some referees had good points; should have spent more time polishing the paper before submitting. Will not submit here in the future. Worst experience, A very very slow journal. Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. A bit long for a short paper, comments were fair and detailed although they pointed the way to an R&R rather than rejection. Larry suggested to send it to field journal. Delays related to second reviewer. Superficial comment. Sounded like the referees couldn't let go off other papers' methodologies. Massive waste of time and money. The editor was quick and helpful. 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). [2] [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors . 7 days for desk reject. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. One positive (R&R) and other two had valid concerns I could have clarified better ex-ante. The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. Rejected on grounds of the paper not "establishing a new set of empirical facts that theory must confront" (Eric Leeper). Reviewing all the documents, she does not like the paper: rejection with 800 words of blabla. Edmans said he wanted RoF to be top 3. The referee has read the paper. Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied even though I got a fast rejection. 2 weeks for 2 high quality ref reports. (I submitted almost the same paper to another journal). Skip Navigation. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. Agreed that this journal is a joke. A year after submission without result? Modifications responded mainly to the good report. Worst experience of my life. Basically, just a short e-mail saying that it cannot be accepted and it is more suited to some other types of Journals. Will not b submitting here again until editorial board changes. Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. fair and efficient process. Fast Resposne in 10 week. Deputy Editor rejected the paper with insufficient contribution and a comment that doesn't make sense. Not interested in the topic, acceptable decision. Still, I have to contact them again after 9 weeks because they did nothing with my paper. He further suggested an exercise that was already illustrated in 2 figures, 1 table and described in the text! Reasonably good experience; referee not overly experienced with topic. In a typical year, every MIT Economics PhD graduate finds a job. All queries tough but manageable - only difficulty was having 3 refs say sometimes contradictory things. Overall, very good experience. Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. BTW, "Under review" all the time during the reviewing process, similar to AEA journals (but different from some other journals using manuscript central). The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. One very good report, one OK. One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal. Editor wrote a few short comments. Horrible experience. Pok Sang Lam rejected with few comments. Economics, Tenured/Tenure-track Advertiser: Various departments, New York University Shanghai Field(s) of specialization: Econometrics - Microeconomics Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. 3 constructive and useful reports. Also one referee was clueless and did not read the paper. Very fair. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. 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. Disappointed with the result, but the experience was okay. His comments indicate he did not have an open arm to read introduction carefully to desk reject. Editor was Imran Rasul, extremely professional and competent. The reports were good and helpful. Clearly no effort was put into it. Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). However, I take as it was me not being able to pass the make the point I wanted. 100 days for 2 useless reports showing lack of understanding of whats going on in the paper, Nice and quick, but bad experience. He even signed the letter. However comments from the negative one are the most detailled and helpful. The dynamic is well known and its implications are rather straightforward in this context. Took 3 month for a simple "out of scope" notification!! A bit slow for a 2000 words paper. Contacted them, told me they will try to send it out to reviewers. The editor was good. Suggests a field journal. Decision was made in 45 days. Referee was perceptive and pointed out serious flaws in the first draft. Annoyed because all of the concerns were addressed and yet she could not be bothered to re-read the paper. Complete garbage. April 16, 2022. Editor rejected because paper topic (public finance) is not what tey are currently looking for. Helpful reports and suggestions by the editor. Shame on you, AE. Editor guidance also helpful. Reasonable. Submitting to JME first was really worth it. That is not cool. Second round was down to one ref and editor, third round was just editor. **** this journal. Paper not anywhere close to editor's field of interest. Said the contribution was too small, which I accept. 1 was more positive and ref. Good experience overall. Very slow, but fair process overall. 3 sentences total, six months. $89. We got referee rejection in 2.5 months: 2 referees, one favours RR, other rejects. Very good experience. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. All three schools are exceptional but UChicago is particularly strong in Econ as well as other core subjects such as polisci and philosophy. Desk rejected in 2 weeks, editor recommended sending the paper to a field journal. Pretty fast, 1 high quailty report. One very good and helpful report. The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. 10 month without any reaction from the editor. Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. 7 weeks. 1 very good referee report, 1 OK, 1 pretty bad (revealing that the referee was clearly a non-economist). The editor and referee claimed the results were nice but hardly adoptable to other more general problems. they suggested a more spezialized on topic journal. Referee claims no revisements were made after substantial revisements were made and detailed. Accepted as it is. Very clear referee report with constructive comments. Which is BS because paper on the same topic was published a couple of months earlier in EJ. One positive review, one negative, editor took the side of the negative. Really good advice from journal editor and 2 good reports. This particular group controlling urban economics now will not let any differing view go through AER and JUE. 2 months with almost no answer, although the journal claims desk rejections are within days. Good experience, worth the 100$ :). For three months the editor has not assigned referees! OK comments from referee. 2022 Job Market Candidates . Reports detailed and helpful. Update to previous pending post. Hastily written by PhD student. It has had it uses as a source of gossip but it accumulated the worst of any group of mostly 20 something American men. One report of 10 lines with one minor comment and the other one, longer but with also minor comments. He sends you an email that he carefully read the paper and then you follow up a day after asking him about a clarification and his response was that he did not remember. One referee report was fine. Decent reports, rejecting for fair reasons. Editor at least seemed to have given a pretty detailed reading of the paper, but was disappointed with the amount of time it took for a desk rejection. Sick comments and rejection for no reasons. First report provided helpful insights, second - only half page of general comments. 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. Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. the other report is empty (rejection). Very happy with the editorial process. Poorly managed. Mess with the submission, as they were changing editors. paper.? Good experience and good editorial team. Two careful reports with good feedback. it ?could ?be ?the ?case ?that ?I ?have? Difficulties to reach the editor, but useful report and very fast decision (1 day) after submitted the revised manuscript. Would submit again. He just wanted me to write a different paper. Going into the ninth month with no response. faculty) positions. Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. Economics Job Market Rumors. Tough revisions, but very fair. One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. Very efficient and fast. Desk rejected but the co-editor read the manuscript carefully and gave substantive comments. Quality suggestions from all three reports & editor. Got most thorough, informed, and useful referee reports in 5 years. Environment, Development, and Sustainability. Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines). Editor slept on the paper's submission history and the reviewer's dishonesty. Solid referee report and very quick response. Duration: 2 years. Did get a field journal suggestion and a refund of submission fees. Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Submission is waste of time. Editor was polite. Fast process, but very poor reviewer report. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help. Fast, but absolutely useless reports. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. Quick desk rejection from the Editor (about a week). Recommended field journals Clueless editor thinks results are of narrow interest. Weak editor. Quick desk reject after less than 24 hours without comments, annoying given the submission fee. Journal is basically a scam now. 1 lukewarm, lazy report with many mistakes. Desk Reject, No Comment, Horrible Experience- THEY DO NOT REFUND the submission fee. reports. Desk rejected by Katz within 24 hours. The other referee recommended revision. Very efficient process. Very good and useful referee reports. Editor did not add any comments. We agreed with most of the comments. Sounds fair. Job Market. It is frustrating to get rejected after convincing the referees. editor(s) provided good comments too. Rather weird outcome but quite quick for a journal of its reputation. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. Polite / nice email from Editor. The editor, not having confidence in the reports, decided to reject, I believe. Not much insight from the editor, whose concerns were rather vague. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. I knew I shot too high. Good reports, but what a punch in the gut. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). totally useless editor. However, he referred to incorrect and minor points made by the referees. The editor rejects the paper and I think it is fair, but I do see that the paper can be improved based on these reports. Desk rejected in 2 days. Ref. I've been around the block a few times, published in top 5, and most of my articles get cited considerably more than average for the journal. Very good experience: I wish all my rejected submissions were as fast and polite. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. Co editor rejected it. might be a once in a career event. Paper got desk rejected. had no economic relevance and was not worth being sent out to a referee. One line "referee report". Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! So they had no idea about basic econometrics. Fast desk reject on subjective grounds. The AE's letter was useful, although no suggestion what to try next. Great process, fortunate to make it past desk as LRM grad student, very helpful ref report received 8 days after submission. Desk rejected in two hours with a polite email that basically said "your methodology is wrong and your question is wrong." Quick turnaround time for the first R&R, but very slow for the last round. The editor (Hongbin Li) rejects because of lack of fir with the journal's mission. Very good experience. Also the editor gave us good comments. Editor does not see a path to acceptance so rejection. Useful comments from editor; one really great ref. A bit of wait but ok for econ standards. Complete waste of time!! desk reject after three months editor claimed they did not publish papers on this topic but they bogh b, actually submitted in 2017; desk rejection after 1 week; short and friendly answer of editor; however inconclusive, editoral. National Bureau of Economic Research. 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. I declined the offer to resubmit. Very fast; useful, reasonably positive report despite rejection. People need filters. The reports were very brief (. Very efficient process. They keep the submission fees, very efficient cash cow! Referees rejected. Process seemed very fair. Not sure why we didn't get desk rejected. 1 week: nice, but no fit with general interest. Editor cites two but only sends one. A grad student could do better! Encouraging and polite comments from editor. Economic Theory Bulletin. Overall decent and professional expert reports. Very constructive comments from Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) and referees. Have they done first-round interviews? Ever. Referees obviously did not read the paper. Rejected and no reason given. Editor rejected based on that. A number of emails without reply since then. Referee report transformed the paper significantly. 2 detailed comments from referees. 6 weeks. Very helpful feedback that made this a better paper. 2 reports and 2 rounds. The Graduate School of Business at Columbia University is seeking to hire one or more tenure-track faculty members in the area of economics, including those in macroeconomics, open economy macroeconomics, or macroeconomic aspects of international trade, applied microeconomics, organizational economics, industrial organization, behavioral . Fast turnover. Ok, experience if it wouldnt be for the 11 months. Both referees suggested papers to be cited in the literature review, which seem like their own papers. The ME provided helpful comments on top of the two reviewers'. Desk rejected, one sentence given. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. Waste of time. ), 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. Sent it to another top 5 instead where it got accepted after one round of revisions - never give up guys! Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. Very quick and very fair. Useless referee reports--one was just a single short paragraph. Editorial office very helpful. Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. Didn't let it go, Editor told him to "#"# off and published the paper anyway. 4.5 weeks to desk reject. Decision by editor (Mark Taylor): minor revision and resubmit. Bad experience. Full of informative/wrong comments. very thorough referee report, comments were mostly related to theoretical motivation, paper was submitted without much change to JFE and eventually accepted there. Extremely outdated econometric "suggestions" and an overall lack of understanding. Katz rejected in less than 24 hours with some comments. Chat (0) Conferences. 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) Six weeks for response. Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. Please Login or . Reason - paper was too specialized. Suggested a more specialized journal. Posted: (4 days ago) WebNov 2011 - Present10 years 4 months. Constructive referee report; said needed more robustness checks, but difficult in word limit. Three referee reports. Fast turnaround. The other `meh'. Editor sat for two months on completed referee report and rejected without adding any comments. Good handling by the editor. Desk rejected after one day due to poor fit. ", Bad experience: six months to get one report plus a decision letter that looked like a desk rejection (which is ok, but not after 6 months). It is not very clear why it got rejected at the end (I guess referees recommended rejection but thsi was not stated in their reports so it coudl have been the editor who thought it was difficut to get published given the work needed). Desk rejected in 10 days because the editor wasn't a fan of the data. I think s/he would have been satisfied by an appendix section on the issue raised. Editor efficient, but strange experience: Two referees were very favorable, but the third referee rejected by quoting a "flaw" which was in fact correct. Useless reports. Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. I am not in a club, whatever it is.). One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. Process was too long given that only minor changes were required on R&R. 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. 3 weeks to desk reject. Good experience. 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. 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. Editor was very kind. Quick response within three days. others ref reports okay. Good experience, great turnaround. Extremely poor experience. One paragraph report when decision finally made. comments were not very insoghtful, but decision & process overall fair. Editor reject due to relevance. 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. Well-run journal. Took way to long for three one page poor quality reports. Very happy with experience so far. Very well-run journal. This was high risk but of course at the end worth it because it is a good journal. My new favorite journal, Very clear instructions from editor for revision. Obviously an inevitably subjective decision, but given this, the handling was very fair. only one report (quite helpful). Good comments from 2 referees, the other did not appear to have read the paper well. After this thrid email, the paper moves up and it takes 11 weeks to get referee rejection (quality fo the two reports: poor, they wont improve my paper). Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Two referee reports. Two high quality reports. Four months for a desk reject! Terrible experience. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. Good report. 1 report, minor issues, rejected. The referee had a chip on their shoulder and the editor stepped in. 4.5 months to get the 1st-round comments, 2.5 months for 2nd round. One ref report with extremely constructive criticisms. You can even not see these wordings in Game of Thrones. Two straightforward R&R recommendations from referees. Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. Ona day later they reected it with a one sentence crappy referee report. Nothing that indicated they read the paper or even seriously considered it. Very good experience. The reports are also very helpful. Generic letter saying the paper was not fit to general interest journal. The shitty one referred to multiple papers in very low ranked journals authored by the same set of authors. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. The editor barely read the paper and decided to just reject it At least it was quick response - 11 days. Editor is losing it. Can I Travel To France With A Criminal Record, Megan Gaffney Obituary, Stanford Aoerc Reservation, How To Fix A Bowed Basement Wall Yourself, Articles E