No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. 1 really excellent, positive report. He only mentioned that I failed to mention a lot of papers who were all by the same person. Quick responds. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. Awesome experience. The paper is mostly empirical and they asked for massive extension of the dataset. Short turn around time. Editor rejected based on own concerns. Outcome was fair and reports well done, but waiting time was unacceptable and the editor's lettere extremely poor. Editor agreed. 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. One positive (R&R) and other two had valid concerns I could have clarified better ex-ante. However, everything was fixed, and overall I am happy. Eight months is a long wait though. Referee didn't think the contribution is significant enough, so straight reject. They said they could not find reviewers. It took six months for a single referee report (of exactly one paragraph of comments). Desk rejected within a week. The editor VanHoose made some good comments though. Some conflicting recomms that editor didn't address. Clearly done day before deadline. Will never submit again. Overall, the decision was not fair. Scam. Bad experience overall, although the reports came quickly. Desk rejected thoughtelessly with curious comment paper read more like a book, 8 month desk reject with no reports--JPE is dead to me, desk rejected in a bit over a week, not clear who handled the paper. Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. The editor likes the idea, but things the method is not new, so recommended to a field journal. very professional; some referees had good points; should have spent more time polishing the paper before submitting. Editor desk rejected stating that paper (which was on the program of Top 3 conferences etc.) Awful experience. Tough referee process, won over 3, 4th still had doubts but Editor pushed ahead. Thank goodness that there are more journals in health economics started. The referees gave great feedback to improve the paper. He clearly did not read the paper and wrote a pretty much standard rejection that had nothing to do with the paper. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. Very good editor recommending a field journal. The editor was fair and provided reasons why the paper was rejected. waiting 19 months as of today, sent 3 reminfers, Hall nor anybody else from the journal havent responded so far to any of my emails. Very Detailed construtive reports. Suggested a general interest journal.
This is why I'll never get married Economics Job Market Rumors Good referee reports. Rejected as "Given the poor quality of provincial GDP statistics, CER has decided not to publish papers based on provincial GDP data for now until the true data series at the provincial level are reconstructed" but they are still publishing with this data see for instance Lv, Liu, and Li 2020 Fiscal incentives, competition, and investment in China. Desk reject in a week. I appreciate the quick desk reject. They changed their system recently and the new system indicated that my paper had not been submitted so I waited 5 months for nothing. Reviewers made many incorrect comments and almost no useful comments, editor straight up said didn't read the paper, but reviewers are negative so reject. Got most thorough, informed, and useful referee reports in 5 years. Over the past six years, the department has placed a total of 128 graduates in academic, research, and government jobs.
50% of Americans believe US should support Ukraine 'as long as it takes Bad experience, waste of money and time.
One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. One report useless, read only the first quarter of the paper. Expected much better from this journal. THREE MONTHS! The editor's comments were no less helpful and extensive as referees' reports. Fair enough reasons why, but would have appreciated less time. But editor is very good, One referee report with no constructive comments. And the whole process took us 8 months. The reason was that the, Andrew Samwick rejected within 2 days, Topic is too speacialized for EL. Job Market Paper: Sorting in the Marriage Market: The Role of Inequality and its Impact on Intergenerational Mobility. Desk reject in 4 hours. I feel that mediocre editors are too scared to consider papers unless at least one of the authors is a big shot. 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. Very efficient process. One referee not only did not read the paper but criticized something the paper does not do at all! I agree with most of the comments, but the bar for publication was exceptionally high, considering his relatively low position in the journal ranking. 3 reports in 28 days. The reports were very brief (. 2 constructive reports that improve the paper after 2 months. One decent report. 1 positive and 1 negative report - Editor rejected. Going through 15 months of the reviewing process. Fast but shallow. Reports were pretty good.
51 of 55 African countries snub Ukraine Economics Job Market Rumors Not even a single remotely useful comment. Slow but good experience overall. Two weeks and they not assigned a manuscript ID number. Another one was sharp.
Job Market - Economics High quality, detailed referee reports, which substantially improved the paper. Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. Very good comments from both the reviewers and editors. One ref in favor, one against. Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. Referee process could be streamlined (take too long), but overall a good experience. Very efficient process, paper improved with referee comments. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. There are several claims that are either wrong or very poorly explained (e.g., a Nash equilibrium need not be Pareto optimal!). Much quicker response than suggestsed. Ridiculous report by the most clueless referee who probably spend one hour only to read and review the paper altogether. Both have suggestions (one extensive, one less so). Reviewers' concerns are reasonable but they didn't provide helpful suggestions. Now Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. useless reports. Probably I was a bit lucky the 2 referees liked the idea of teh paper sicne ti was a bit sort and basically asked me to do some mreo stuff. 7 days from first submission to minor revision. Rapid desk rejection, with fair comments and advice from editor. Useful letter from the editor. Overall good experience. Most horrible and bizarre referee reports. I declined the offer to resubmit. I urged the editor to give me reports 3 months after the initial submission. Good reports. Suggest field journal. Advisors: Robert Seamans (Chair), Gino Cattani, Sinziana Dorobantu, Arun Sundararajan. After more than 3 months of waiting, the paper was rejected with a one-sentence referee report. Quick turnaround upon revision. Rather short reports for waiting 6 months. Good quality reports for a low-ranked journal, though. Good experience overall, took more than 1 year to get one referee report. 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. One referee report---which is actually better than any report ever received with this paper (including those from RFS, JFQA, and MS). Wayne State University (Economics) View all current job postings. quick process but the editor provided no information and was impolite. It was a long process but the editor and referees were genuinely helpful. Editor then agreed. Took 3 rounds for editor to realize terrible referee was a crackpot. cooperative? Revised carefully and resent, then they sent to another editor and another reviewer whose report contradicted the first and was very vague. It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. Accepted w/o further revision 18 days after resubmit. Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Very tough report on the first RR, extensive changes suggested, though all feasible and mostly all improved the quality of the paper. Referee was perceptive and pointed out serious flaws in the first draft. one of the reports was literaly 3 sentences. Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. I will never submit there again, Excellent and constructive reports. Very slow. Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! The referee's main criticism was like "they argued that A is the main point, which is weak. Paper drastically improved through process. But then, it took 20 weeks until we got the acceptance. Two referee reports, each was half a page with very general comments about the lack of contribution to a general readership. Received two referee reports and a review from the associate editor within two months of initial submission. Very good referee reports. Silly comments from AE. paper proposed theory that is quite a substantial departure, so i appreciate the editor's willing to take it on. Submission refund. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. My paper was much of empirical. 1 month + 10 days for desk rejection. Some decent comments nevertheless. Highly recommended. 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. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. 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. This journal is a scam. Worst experience I have ever had. No referee reports, just got notified I was accepted. However we had make all of the referee's suggestions and the outcome was not positive. Editor recommended to submit to other journals. Jerome Adda was editor. We got RR and referee reports 4 moths after submission, then it took 5 months to acceptance. Conley is a very nice Editor. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. Yep, it is. nice letter from editor, good and fair comments, 1 ref report good. This was high risk but of course at the end worth it because it is a good journal. Good first round reports, took a while to respond to all the comments. Largely fair points. Contribution not new enough relative to the existing literature. Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. Had to email them to speed up the revision process.
EJM - Econ Job Market Very efficient journal. Fast, bad luck with the editor who simply did not seem to see the point of the paper. The other report was *atrocious*. Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. What a joke! Editor like the paper but their hands were tied, I guess. Not enough contribution. Overall efficient and fair but demanding process. also received comments from the old reviewer that were better than the first review. My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. Also the editor gave us good comments. Ultimately, Editor rejected as felt it was not general purpose enough. Nice letter. Articles/sites of interest for students on the Job Market. The contribution of the paper as it stands to be insu cient for publication in The Econometrics Journal. Quality Ref reports. Very fast process. a bit slowtwo general positive+one negative reports, and the editor rejected itfeel sad, but not too bad experience Average (low) quality reports. Signaling. Desk rejection came in 10 days. 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. Accepted after two rounds. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. The journal originally sent me the referee's letter to the editor instead of the referee report - took almost a week to actually get the report. Katz had very clear advice regarding revision (also what parts of the referee reports to ignore). No BS, great experience! Good reports. English. The paper was accepted quickly after revision. One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. great experience. Very fast process. Two referee reports. for a desk reject with quite boring paragraphs from the editor along the lines why this is not using Angrist-Pischke methods One of the referee reports was very well informed. Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. They never refunded my fee either. 1 Month from Submission to a very positive R&R. Desk reject within two weeks. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. Editor rejected on the basis of being too narrow. Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. Editor rejected. Bit disappointing given the high fee. Fantastic experience (accepted first round), Directly accepted within one month. The editor did not even get that the comments were wrong. No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. Efficient. The paper was accepted few days after the revised version has been submitted. Also good editing support. Yet editor made some good comments. fair and efficient process. ", Fact: the SAT and GRE are just thinly veiled IQ tests. Great editor who was great at handling the process and chasing referees. 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. Very fast. Very clubby journal. Very quick. 5 months for one low-quality referee report. Desk rejection in one day by Giovanni Perri. Found out it was rejected only by contacting them. In reality, the paper is poorly motivated and the link between the model and the anecdotal evidence discussed in the introduction is not clear. Fair rejection. Good overall experience. Not easy - but straightforward. Still got rejected. Quality of editing going down. Took 6 weeks. 2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. Placement Director - Alessandro Pavan Email: alepavan@northwestern.edu. This paper has just been accepted in a top transportation journal now. in JF in the area). But at least fast. Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. Good experience. Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. Really good experience, good comments and moved quickly through the process. Encouraging and polite comments from editor. Very pleased. Old fashined. Very pleasant experience!
Home | Economics Job Market Rumors One few sentence report after 5 month. After 3 weeks this would have been acceptable. The editor rejected based on flimsy reasons. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. did not refund the submission fee. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. Paper was internally valid-(ish) but not a big enough contribution. Overall good experience. Fasstest acceptation ever after R&R: 1 day! The journal is likely to go up again. not a fair process. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. the editor was helpful and nice though. We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. Rejected after 2 weeks. Please Login or . Desk Reject in a Week but it did come with two pages of notes and questions that should help the paper. Considered waste of time here. Unfortunately paper was assigned to handling editor who was on study leave. Disappointing as paper got some fine ref reports in another top journal and revised. Form letter from the editor. 1 report ok, the other one awful, Referee clearly did not understand the paper. 5 months before the editor could take the time to look at the paper. Provided very useful comments. Paper sent to an editor with completely different interests. Editor was polite. Useful reports and fast turnaround. Didn't even quite read the rewritten paper. Avoid at all costs.. 10 days for desk rejection decision. 1 very helpful report. Horrible experience, late response, useless report. It was almost like somebody pickpocketed and got my $600, had to pay $100 instead of the usual submission fee. Took 6 months for first reply (ref reject); 1 referee critical but fair, the other one very critical but didn't read the paper carefully.
a positive experience, all in all. Good experience. Two good reports. quick and clear communication with editor. Very good experience. Professional reports. I am not in a club, whatever it is.). The other reviewer raised some minor issues. No reply yet. Very quick handeling, decent reports. Desk-rejected after one week without any substantial or specific comment, apart recommending to submit to a specialist journal. Not signed by any specific editor, so not even sure who handled the manuscript. Comments were not really helpful. Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. Did not receive a rejection letter from the co-editor. Helpful reports and suggestions by the editor. Two weeks desk reject. Editor provided no additional comments. Fair experience. overall v good experience. Never submit to this journal again. Some fair some unwarranted comments. Rejected by an Associate Editor, who actually read the paper, got the main idea clearly, and wrote a 2 full-page report with reasoning why this is not for JET and what journal outlets might be considered. 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. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. No referee reports. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper. Not a good experience. E. Two detailled and useful reports, one irrelevant. Very good reports. Reports were okay but in the end not that helpful. Desk reject within two days. They kept the application fee. get first response in 28 days. Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. Very very good comments, referee was clearly very knowledgeable. Have contacted the editorail asistant three times (startung six weeks after submission) who said she would remind the editor. 2 was more critical. The report is rubbish and incorrect. The comments from the editor are also disappointing: his main suggestion is to send our 7,500 words paper to economics letters. It's going to be most accurate for economics, political science, public policy & other professional schools. At least they gave decent feedback. Desk rejected in 10 days. 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) Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. Both refs postive but think the topic is not a good fit for the journal. Only quibble is one referee got stuck on a (not applicable) approach and wouldn't let go. 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. he clearly read the paper. Initial review was slow but there was an editor change that may have contributed to this. Had to withdraw after ten months of waiting. Complete waste of time. Editors reject the paper. Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. Accepted once I satisfied the referees. paper.? 16 hour turnaround with nice letter of thoughtful comments suggesting more specialized journal. So not good but frankly much better than other journals. One referee reports is only 2 short paragraphs long and completely wrong. One referee report was fine. Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever. Isnt it written that this journal focuses on mathematical reasoning instead of sticking to conventional setup? The reviewer was excellent, made the paper much better with his/her comments. ANyway, I think this is a risk when submitting to general interest journals. Fast, but absolutely useless reports. It was completely incoherent. Online in 2 months. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. The rejection came with a useless referee report. Rigor of the paper increased greatly because of the refereeing process. Health economics, Applied . Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. Detailed reports, 2 negative, 1 positive; nice letter from co-editor. Desk rejected in two weeks. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. Very good experience overall. Rejected within 4 days with a decent explanation. Two useful ref reports in the first round. After waiting for more than 5 months I got 0 Referee reports and a rejection based on very loose comments. Not a good fit! Search by name. Editor very sympathetic, but rejected. R&R, then reject. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. 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. AFter 3 months of being "under review", I get this email: I regret to say that we are not able to offer publication to your paper. Contribution too small. Was rejected today by editor as only 1/2 referee reports submitted. WD has become a true shitshow. Average turnaround time was rather long for AEJ standards. This journal is a scam! Decision was made in 45 days. In anyway, you need to be very careful when responding with him, he can easily upset you with a rejection. The referee seemed to be familiar with the broad topic of the special issue, but not with the specific subject the paper dealt with (e.g. That sounds fair to me. One referee waited for 182 days to submit his/her report as there was a time stamp on the report. PhD Program Administrator: Mirtha Cabello, cabello@bu.edu, (617) 353-4454. Referee wrote a short report with easily implementable suggestions, suggesting revision. two referee reports. This is why our profession sucks. First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. Very easy suggested an appropriate transfer and levied the submission fees, with editor providing quite helpful comments. Thorough review. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. Some not so fair. Might have been better if they said they hate the paper. AER:Insights - Larry Samuelson, Very polite, slightly more than standard rejection letter, saying - not a good fit, although enjoyable. The other referee was also good and liked the paper. Helpful reports, overall good experience. Editor gives no justification whatsoever. Initial demanding R&R. Good experience. Reviewer number two said the paper had no relevant contribution beyond those of a paper recently published in a top journal. Not recommended. I understand there is variability in this process, but it was a terrible experience. be viewed as too specific. It ended up being published in a higher ranked journal. Formulaic letter. The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it. All the points are addressable so I would've liked an RR but I'm not part of the club so I can't complain. What follows is a summary of what I see as the key advice, with links to other resources that go into more depth or do a better job than I can. Very quick. . My paper was in "submitted" status for almost 5 months when made a query. others ref reports okay. If you are in a hurry or need one to fill you CV, then choose it.. editor very helpful. rejection. But the other one was useless; it's like a collection of "minor comments.". Decent referee report, acceptance 3 days after submitting revision. Maybe paper is not good enough, but the "report" was not convincing either. Useful reports, good summary by editor. Professional co-editor and referee. Efficient and fair. Helpful for resubmission somewhere else. Good. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. Horner is a disaster! Editor provided quick and fair comments why the paper is not suitable for the journal. One excellent referee report, one terrible. Two of three referees did not read the paper. A waste of 250$ and time. Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. Other two reports are fine, although one other also did not read a section, s/he says. Two very useful ref reports in the first round. Not clear if the paper was even read. Decent reports highlighting different issues, mostly sympathetic, but tough. 1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals. At least the process was fast. Paper rejected by editor. Editor read the paper and outlined clear (and fair) reasons for rejection. Very bad experience as referee kept asking for more and more and finally said document was now too long and findings not interesting enough. One report was very useful and of very good quality, the other was of good quality but not very useful.