Desk/ref rejected. Would submit again. 2 rounds of r&r. It has been about 16 months now. Special call. One very good report, the other OK. Accepted after revision within 1 month. Minor comments from editor who appears to have at least gotten the gist of the paper. fast process; only one report who was mainly referencing a single paper (SSRN, not published, single author); no useful feedback, disappointing experience. 1 serious person pushing his method. Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. At least they gave decent feedback. Therefore, we have decided not to review the paper. Quick response. Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. Will never submit to this journal again. The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. Editor sends paper just to his/her peers with predefined ideas. but i think it is an important one that should be considered a bonafide econ journal. Accepted without need for further revisions. Not big enough contribution. Excellent editor, balanced referees and good timing. PhD Program Administrator: Mirtha Cabello, cabello@bu.edu, (617) 353-4454. Mostly generic comments. Very happy LRM made it past desk. Not even a single remotely useful comment. 10 month without any reaction from the editor. Seems largely like the referee just didn't like it and the editor wanted there to be more significant results (publication bias at its best). Lastly withdrew for good after another six months. 2 years and counting, for a small paper. Editors reject the paper. Desk rejected within two weeks. Very professional editors. 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. Editor sat on completed reports for 3 months before making a decision. Some comments from the editor, some are useful. Took seven weeks to get these reviews, pretty efficient journal. Will never try it again. Editor followed the referees suggestion, though with his own view on the paper. Superficial comment. Invited to revise and resubmit the paper. In? Both found the topic and general question interesting and wanted us to think more carefully which question we ask and how we can answer it. The most thoughtful and detailed review I've ever had. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! Katz rejected my paper before I was done submitting it; suspect time travel. Two referee reviews. Great experience. One was good and one was particularly bad with a lot of non-english expressions. When we inquired after 6 month, we were told to be patient. The shitty one referred to multiple papers in very low ranked journals authored by the same set of authors. editor is dumber than a second coat of paint. Formal letter in less than 10 days returning my manuscript. Unhappy with the outcome of course, but pleased with the process and the handling. Very fast rounds with very insightful and reasonable referee reports and suggestions by the editor. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. thorough but not brutal enough - the paper was not very a contribution at all at the time and needed a much harsher rejection, seriously, referee reports were very thorough and demonstrated expertise, rejections were fair - just wish I would have gotten these reviewers the first time I submitted the paper. One week desk rejection with form letter. Good experience. Editor read the paper and outlined clear and fair reasons for rejection. Happy with the whole process. Good experience. I am a macroeconomist specialized in economic growth and macro labor. Comments based entirely on abstract. within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever. Submitting to JME first was really worth it. $89. Two weeks to desk reject. Ref Reports: I'd say one okay, the other so-so. 1 very weak report, 1 very useful, AE's report extremely weak. We were authorized to hire 2 macro candidates, and we have now done so. one very weird report, asking to cite an unknown WP, from a PhD student One R&R with minor rev, one inscrutable report, and one unfair report with incorrect claims. Finance Job Rumors (489,474) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,762) Micro Job Rumors (15,233) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,523) Industry Rumors (40,348) Economics, Tenured/Tenure-track Advertiser: Various departments, New York University Shanghai Field(s) of specialization: Econometrics - Microeconomics Had 2 tough but fair r&r rounds with 2 reviewers and 1 with the editor. Mostly decent reports raising fair points, OK experience. Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Clear and concise communication with insightful and prfound comments by editor and reviewers. Very easy suggested an appropriate transfer and levied the submission fees, with editor providing quite helpful comments. Took 3 rounds for editor to realize terrible referee was a crackpot. Editor rejected the paper, but it was not unexpected. Complete waste of time and money. Offers and negotiating. Good experience and good editorial team. Good ref reports. Nice words from the editor. Unhelpful, rambling. Overall good experience. Awful experience. Desk reject after 2 weeks due to bad fit. The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. Sick comments and rejection for no reasons. The new editor rejected the paper 2 days after submitted it. Desk rejected in a week. The editor, Richard Rogerson, is very careful and handles the paper in a timely manner. A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!! It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. Desk rejected by Sarte in 3 days without comments. The other is constructive but not as good. Both reports positive (one minor/one major revision recommended). The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. The editor suggested a field journal in a field that had nothing to do with our paper. (It doesn't seem like a club journal. The new editors did a good job, Just a joke, 2 years of "under review" for nothing, two useful comments with one minor, another some work, Good comments, nice time management from the editor, efficient process. On its face, the referee provided a good report, but once I dug into the details, it was clear he didn't understand my identification strategy. Good reports. Good referee report + some comments from AE. The process was very fast. Paper has since been published. Referees did not show good knowledge of the subject. Shameless people. Excellent and helpful comments from both referees and the editor. One referee report was very detailed. very quick response and a useful referee report. Second ref put thought into it but was of a heterodox stripe that I'm not. very good experiencefast and helpful comments from the co-editor and two refereesAverage time between the submission and response is about 1.5 months, well run journal. Awful experience. The editor, not having confidence in the reports, decided to reject, I believe. It took the editor 3 months to write two paragraphs and reject. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. Applying for academic jobs. Bar-Isaak is the editor in charge (much better than others like nocke). However, it was relatively fast at least. Comments were sharp and precise and resulted in a much better paper. At least they were fast. Withdrew paper after one year without signs of life. Very efficient. Very slow process but happy to get accepted. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. The journal is higher than B. Fast and serious journal. Helpful and doable things. Galor and the referees felt the contribution wasn't substantial enough. Desk rejected within 7 days. Maybe the paper did not merit publication in JMCB but that referee report was really ridiculous. Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one). Third round (acceptance) took 2 weeks. One useful report out of three. They did not send an offer last year either. Taburet (LSE), Leombroni (Stanford), Puglisi (Northwestern), Wangner (TSE), Qiu (Pennsylvania), Morazzoni (UPF), Charles (USC), Hurtado (Chicago Booth), Nord (EUI), van der Beck (Lausanne), Monteiro (Northwestern), Gutierrez (Chicago), Senior Economist (Forecasting and Policy Modelling). Nice experience. Awful experience. One report was very useful. Terrible referee report referee made contradictory statements and econometric mistakes in report. Basically got a response on the next working day following a weekend. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. Editor clearly read the paper. Ignored reputation of this journal being a small closed network (mostly WB) journal. Horrible experience! Professional and useful oversall. Desk reject within 1 day. (Fair?) major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). Hastily written by PhD student. DK carefully read and gave constructive feedback. Editor said there are two reports but I only received one. I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided. Sent email to the corresponding editor after 6 months review, but no response. Waste my time. All the referees understood what I did in great detail. Editor was Barro. Awfully slow. Awesome experience. Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Economics of Food Consumption and Distribution. Portuguese Economic Journal* Great process. Detailed reports, 2 negative, 1 positive; nice letter from co-editor. Francis Breedon is an efficient editor. Bunche Hall 8292. One was favorable, the other was on the fence. Note that since the editor(Batten) is handling many different journals at the same time, you should expect relatively slow turnaround time. $ 200 is high for an immediat desk rejection, editor was helpful in replying to inquiry regarding reason for desk rejection. 8 days for a desk rejection. Good process. linking the paper with the "literature in the field", although we specifically say that our empirical application is novel to the field, so there are no comparable references. Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. For three months the editor has not assigned referees! Will never submit again to ER. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. The editor read the paper in great details and added a lot of comments to the referees'. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. Garbage. One very low quality and unfriendly report. The editor's comments are not informative. His own comments were not based on the reports. It was almost like somebody pickpocketed and got my $600, had to pay $100 instead of the usual submission fee. +6 months for a desk rejection without a single comment. The referee reports were fairly good. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience! Now Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. The referee made also several nonsensical remarks about the methodology giving a signal that s/he hasnt thoroughly went through the paper. Even though the outcome is positive, I blame the editor for not selecting competent enough referees to begin with. Good experience, good editor, great referees that really put me through my paces but helped deliver a better paper. Very unlucky submission: First round Reject and Resubmit. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". Total 6 months. I am making revisions. Best experience in a long time. His comments indicate he did not have an open arm to read introduction carefully to desk reject. The reports were very brief (. 2 referees were positive throughout the process, one was an outright acceptance. Quality Ref reports. He is the main contact person for employers who have questions about a candidate's vita . But the comments helped. But very quick process after contacting editorial office. If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not). Referee report useless. 2 months to R&R, revisions accepted by editor about a week after re-submission. What takes so long? [2] [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors . One is very productive while the other is suck. No reason provided, in line with the journal policy. Very low quality report. Very fast; useful, reasonably positive report despite rejection. moderately helpful but whole process took too long. One good report, one completely useless with only superficial, general remarks. Editor chose to follow the suggestion of the AE. Followed up on them, sent it to another journal, and got accepted very quickly. I didn't know that JHR is a general interest journal! Overall, good experience. Joke rejection but not unexpected from this team. Also one referee was clueless and did not read the paper. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. Very good experience. 3 Top 5 referees and editor said the paper was a good fit for ReStat, meh Amitabh Chandra rejected in one month with no infomation. One very good, detailed, and positive report. Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. Made comments about Maximum Likelihood etc when I was using Method of Simuated Moments. Quick desk reject (3 days). Very efficient journal, 3 very helpful reports from a coeditor and 2 referees. One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. The article went online first very quickly after acceptance, which was nice. Terrible, very short referee reports. Although our paper is rejected by the reviewer, I would be very happy to read the referee report. Comments were quite simple, I resubmitted after one month, and the editor accepted the paper after 40 days. Generic letter saying the paper was not fit to general interest journal. Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. the job market for junior economists. The editor wrote the 2nd report. Desk rejected in less than one month. Contribution not new enough relative to the existing literature. When do I give up? English. I will try in the future. Appreciate quick reject. 19 Jun 2023. At first the handling editor informed us that the paper is sent for peer review. Took a year for the paper to get accepted. Referee really helped me to improve this paper with a great report. Very good experience. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. I don't necessarily disagree with the editor's assessment, but was surprised at the low-quality of the referee report. 9 days. Not too bad an experience. Another one was sharp. Some good comments from reviewers, but all focused on marginal issues. 14 days. Very disappointing to have no word on a paper that got R&R with minor revisions in a similar ranked journal half a year later, Desk rejection after three months, editor apologized for delay, Desk accepted, sent to R&R for less than a month. Held my paper for a full year and rejected it on a split decision with one ref suggesting an RR and the other a reject. Very weak report. I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. Waiting for R&R results. Great process, fortunate to make it past desk as LRM grad student, very helpful ref report received 8 days after submission. Two days between handing in the revision and acceptance. One useless referee report claiming that we did not make robustness checks in a journal of 2000 letters! 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. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. Waited for almost a year and sent a couple of emails to the editor; promised us a response in two weeks. Great experience! Harrington and the anonymous reviewer. report and a couple of pretty good ones. One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. I really appreciated the clarity the editor provided in helping to navigate the referee reports. Here is all I received: "I regret to inform you that as part of a pre-screening process applied to all submitted manuscripts to the JDE, I have read your paper and have decided not to put it into the regular review process. Hostile report stating "I do not belive your assumptions", editor ignored it. Second referee made some useful suggestions. Going into the ninth month with no response. E. Two detailled and useful reports, one irrelevant. Very poor referee reports. Crappy journal with crappy editor. There were 2 rounds of revision after which the reviewers validated the manuscript. Also, reviewers are non-economists, providing some real WTF comments. A shame the editor sided with the second. 2 referees clearly read the paper and made some good and insightful comments. Seemed not to like the idea of the paper without actually reading it. The editors are public health monkeys. Good experience overall. A five pages fantasy report written by a phd-student who did not read the paper. The lack of referee reports makes me think it is the latter. Brief comment from the editor. Long wait for such an outcome, 3 reports and Editor provides some good suggestions within 10 weeks. Got published after three rounds. Absolutely disappointed by extremely poor response from the editor (Horioka). No comments, but very fast. Horrible process. Generic letter from editor. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. I believe that if that is the reason it could have been desk rejected. I contacted the journal about that but no response. Much better process and better reviewers at JAERE. He only mentioned that I failed to mention a lot of papers who were all by the same person. Editor did not add any comments. The editor did point out a couple of interesting things. THREE MONTHS! 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. Referee comments generally useful and positive, but guest editor made desicsion to reject given preferences - fair enough really. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. Got a rejection within a couple of days without any constructive comment. happy for a quick decision. 3 sentences total, six months. highly unprofessional, the report is not useful, comments make little sense and contradict to the extant literature on the topic. Quick acceptance after revision. The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. Proved to be quite true. One review was good, and helped to improve the paper, the other one (recommended rejection) was raising many peripheral issues. Quick response. At least the process was fast. econjobrumors.com Top Marketing Channels. rejected in exactly three weeks - editor said that the topic only gets published in JEBO if there's a special issue (which mine was not connected with). Overall a good experience that will help the paper! Fair points by referees. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). I declined the offer to resubmit. 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. At the time the editor had still the paper sitting on his desk. The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. Editor clearly read the paper and claimed a referee did too. High Quality Editing. Relatively high submission fee. Sounds fair. Contribution not new enough. Fair process. Almost 4 weeks for desk rejection. One positive report, one negative, editor's reject decision. 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. 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). However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. They like the paper but the contribution not enough for Econometrica. To avoid. topics should probably be closely related to banking. 1 month to wait for a desk reject is too long. Editor accepted it. Title: Researcher Location: COLOMBIA JEL Classifications:. Entire process takes 1 month. Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. Recommended field journals. The former editors at the penn state just issued reject to relieve their editorial jobs. 2 months for decision from being notified that "reviews received" and one of the referee reports was dated 7 months ago. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. Very tough but very useful report! Got a form letter in 10 days. Constructive and helpful comments from the co-editor. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. Rejected afterwards. that ?no? Although desk-rejected, I am very satisfied. Also a very kind editorial letter. One great, very helpful report; one report that made an honest effort, but wasn't useful; one report that was one paragraph long and littered with spelling mistakes. Submitted in 2014. Great experience. Good experience overall. Overall, it was a good experience. First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. Decent experience; overall fast, fair and constructive. He had nothing but praise for it and offered good suggestions. In all the rejection was fair. Good experience, even though a reject. Two reports of middling quality. A Doctorate level degree in Economics or related fields, or expect to receive it in 2023 with strong background in empirical analysis and policy-focused research. Very fast decisions. Worst referee report ever. The low-quality report won out Reject with two solid reports. 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. One seems to be written by a first-year bachelor student. Took altogether 8 months to acceptance. 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. One positive review, one negative, referee took the side of the negative. Editor skimmed it at best and decided to reject without comments. Not general interest.
Funeral Of Jimmy Jones 1994,
Articles E