Terrible referees. 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. 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. Desk reject after two weeks. One good quality referee with good comments and suggestions. Quite upsetting. Do not send a paper to BE JM, Very bad experience. 1 report half page long. In the end, the editor reject the article. Actually a nice experience. Rejected within one day. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. Reason given: "not general enough." Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. It's quick, but the reports are really bad and unhelpful. Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. 1 great, 1 so so, 1 absolutely trash (the referee only argued on the reliability of the benchmark case, which is a well established result in the literature!!!). One good report (weak r&r). Submission fee refund. Ref report definitely helpful. 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 . However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! Reasonable. My experience with other journals when there is only 1 referee, the editor always provides a report detailing their reasons for accepting or rejecting the paper. After careful consideration, the JAPE editorial team considers the paper is largely a statistics exercise. Giles is a great editor. Good report and conditionally accepted with minor revisions. The latter may be fine but it is clear that the referee did not read the paper very carefully. Very good and helpful referee reports even though it is a rejection. Though reports with constructive comments, Tough and fair refereeing. Not big enough contribution. Reports only partly helpful. this journal is very inefficient in processing submissions and re-submissions. Took seven weeks to get these reviews, pretty efficient journal. Not a particularly good experience, constructive reports, editor had read the paper and gave additional comments, One bad/objectively false report, one useful report. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. Comments didn't make sense. 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. 2 quick rounds of R&R. Three reports, two reports are with doable suggestions, one is low-quality. one ?could ?understand? I understand there is variability in this process, but it was a terrible experience. Editor read/scanned desk rejected paper. Finance Job Rumors (482,056) General Economics Job Market Discussion (727,619) Micro Job Rumors (14,915) Macro Job Rumors (9,755) European Job Market (100,185) China Job Market (102,275) Industry Rumors (39,946) Hostile report stating "I do not belive your assumptions", editor ignored it. President, University of Applied Sciences in Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Education, Labor, Gender, Development and Public Policies. Some warm words from the editor. Thanks Amy! Generic comment of the editor. While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. Very bad experience. One good report, the other one poor. Unfair letter from Emi N. Great letters from four referees and three of them are very positive! 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. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. Good reports overall. Rejected based on 1 helpful referee report. 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. Clearly there were 2 initial refs: 1 suggested R&R, the other suggested rejection. Aina (Zurich), Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA), Conte (U Bologna / UAB), Stockler (UAB), Health Economics Labor and Demographic Economics Urban, Rural, Regional, Transportation Economics In, Fan (Stanford), Lepper (Pitt), Mahmood (OSU), Rehbeck (Ohio State AP), Vidart (UConn AP), Liu (Michigan AP), Yoder (Georgia AP), Mathevet (EUI AP), Cox (Yale postdoc), Choi (Princeton), Craig (Yale postdoc), applied microeconomics, econometrics, and/or macroeconomics, Yang (USC) Vidart (UConn AP) Qiu (Penn) Mills (Princeton) Mugnier (CREST), Borusyak (UCL), Ramos (Harvard), Ostriker (MIT), Sharma (MIT), Vitali (UCL), Crews (Chicago), Druckenmiller (RFF), University of California, San Diego (UCSD), Seck (Harvard), Mills (Princeton), Alfonsi (Berkeley ARE), Rivera (Columbia), Idoux (MIT/Wharton AP), Moscona (MIT), Souchier (Stanford), Chen (Stanford GSB), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Vitali (UCL), Ederer (Toulouse), Lanzani (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Miller (Wharton), Vasudevan (Yale SOM), Nimier-David (ENSAE), Pernoud (Stanford), Kwon (HBS), Fleckenstein (Stern), Hampole (Kellogg), Wang (Stanford GSB), Tang (Harvard), Coston (CMU), Singh (MIT), Yong Cai (Northwestern), Yuling Yan (Princeton), Mou (Berkeley), Jahani (Berkeley), Chang (Yale), Moran (Columbia), Uehara (Cornell), Althoff (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Carry (ENSAE), Conlon (Harvard), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Kohlhepp (UCLA), Minni (LSE), Moscona (MIT), Nguyen (MIT), Otero (UC Berkeley), Pernoud (Stanford), Roth (Uni of Cologne), Thereze (Princeton), Vergara (UC Berkeley), Sturm (MIT), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford). Paper drastically improved through process. Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. Great experience. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE. So unprofessional and shameful. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. Much faster than last experience with the journal, same result. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. Editor is a insecure joke. Paper denounced an error on widely cited paper (unfairly comparing bootstrap vs asypmtotic theory with a nonpivot statistic!). Two straightforward R&R recommendations from referees. Mark Watson was the editor. Very poor referee reports. We resubmitted to AEPP and the paper received minor revisions after the second R&R. The Editor does appologize on the long delay saying one referee did not provide the report. Welcome to the Mathematics Jobs Wiki 2021-2022 research positions page. Editor cites two but only sends one. It details the following: Preparing to go on the job market. fast desk rejection within 2 days. The co-editor was very efficient and apparently read the paper. Both reviewers were positive suggested R&R. Good comments from 2 referees, the other did not appear to have read the paper well. Would try again. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. I am happy with the outcome. Overall a good experience that will help the paper! Desk rejected after 3 days from Shleifer. Good experience. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Great experience - referee and editor very helpful. Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. Probably the fastest journal I've had experience with. Not sure why we didn't get desk rejected. Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). Very good referee reports. One referee, although clearly in favour of publication, asked a good deal of revisions and it took us 4 motnhs to respond so most of the delay may have been our fault. Editor not helpful at all. Overall a very nice experience. The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. Main reason for this is that they assigned a different associate editor on the second round which I find highly unusual. Complete waste of time and money. The journal is a joke! Nice editor. All of them are much speedier and you will actually get helpful comments that will improve your paper. We made almost all of the changes required by the referees and the editor accepted it. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. REHO is a scam, not a journal. Our paper is rejected after receiving one referee report. Referee failed to upload report. Ridiculous experience. Editor suggested JIE. He might have read the abstract--clearly doesn't know the literature enough to see the contribution. 1 Ref suggested R&R, Galasso decided to reject, Two referees, one useful and helpful, the other clearly not an expert in the field. Generally not 5-star experience but worth submitting there if your paper is relevant. Good referee report + some comments from AE. half a page report. Editor was great (helpful, insightful, truthful). Journal. Good handling by the editor. One is OK, other one is exteremly negative. I had. The discussant in the shitty conf gives better comments. Placements of Recent Economics Graduates. a? no negative comments, just say that the contribution is not big enough for Econometrica, which is completely understandable. This journal is a bit hell to make it attractive to authors in order to get their money easily. So they had no idea about basic econometrics. I don't disagree with decision, but too long for a relatively straight-forward empirical paper. One somewhat elaborated report. Referee obviously has no clue of what's going on. I assume he did not like the topic at the end. 6 weeks for a desk reject. Editor provided some friendly comments. terrible experience, after submission my paper was not sent out to referees for more than 6 months. Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports. No feedback at all. One report was very constructive and helped improve the qualitiy of the paper. a bit slowtwo general positive+one negative reports, and the editor rejected itfeel sad, but not too bad experience Average (low) quality reports. Will never submit again to ER. Very good experience. In case of desk rejection, they should return the submission fee. Good report, positive rec. Bad experience. Took 9 months for acceptance. I am not in a club, whatever it is.). Fast. Very fast, and really high-quality referee reports, plus the AE's feedback. A journal to avoid. no comments given. Two weak reports. 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. Referee clearly did not read paper closely because the bulk of his (limited) comments focused on why I don't address an issue that is addressed prominently in the introduction. On the downside, the time between each of the two rounds of R&R was longish. He gave thoughtful comments about how to better target elsewhere. Amazing experience. Very efficiently run journal (at least my experience). The editor also read the paper and gave very good comments and suggestions. My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. contribution is not enough. The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. However, once the paper was assigned to referees, the speed was normal. Very efficient process. Not all theory papers are welcomed. 1 month desk reject. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). Awesome experience. The referee reports were serious and offered some good suggestions, although one of the referees appeared not to understand the theoretical model used in the paper. ", Editor had serious problems in getting referee reports although on this topic there should have been at least 20 potential referees. Worst experience ever. Incredible experience: one of the referee report told us that a working paper was published on almost the same subject (and justifies our rejection) but this working paper was published 5 months after our submission ! Complete waste of time.. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), Reports not very helpful, paper not in journal scope. Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality. Told not a fit. Editor rejected after R&R without providing any referee report (note: journal name has now changed to International Journal of Health Economics and Management, International Journal of Industrial Organization. The paragraph/comment not constructive. Competent referee reports, although one of them extremely hostile. Tough but fair referee reports. Comments are constructive. relatively fast process and referee helped to improve the papers. 5 months for a desk reject! I haven't received the first response yet. Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). Desk rejected in one day. Excellent referee reports, with useful input from the editor (Auerbach) regarding how to handle them. Editor picked reasonable comments, asked to take into account suggestions, accepted the paper after the referees agreed that what I did is reasonable. After 12 months the paper was not even sent out to review or rejected despite 10 emails. Burak Uras (Tilburg AP), Caitlin Hegarty (Michigan), Diana Sverdlin Lisker (MIT), Suzanna Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Garima Sharma (MIT), Ruozi Song (USC), Heitor Sandes Pellegrina (NYU Abu Dhabi), Juanma Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Katherine Stapleton (WB/Oxford), Dario Tortarolo (Berkeley), Jonah Rexer (Wharton), Anna Vitali (UCL), Livia Alfonsi (Berkeley), Binta Zahra Diop (Oxford), Shafaat Yar Khan (WB/Rochester), Althoff (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Vaidya (Northwestern), Chan (Stanford), Bodere (NYU), Pernoud (Stanford), Kang (Stanford GSB), Minni (LSE), Otero (Berkeley), Bodere (NYU), Vergara (Berkeley), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Carry (CREST), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Ospital (UCLA), Lanzani (MIT), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Kennedy (Berkeley), Souchier (Stanford). Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Good experience with helpful AE and reviewer. The other referee was serious however. ANyway, I think this is a risk when submitting to general interest journals. One report was very useful. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Editor wrote a few short comments. What would be a fair solution to racial reconcilation issues in the USA? Editor says, "your paper poses only a very marginal contribution to the literature in theoretical economics. In a word, this is not a serious journal. Split decision. Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that! Easiest publication of my life! We asked to see the reports but the editor did not send them. Awful experience. 2 years and counting, for a small paper. Much improved paper. Good experience. Helpful comments from the editor (besides the usual thy shall cite my papers). The reports were very brief (. Economics Job Market. the other report is empty (rejection). Ended up being a better paper. Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. When we inquired after 6 month, we were told to be patient. Desk Rejected after 2 days. 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. However, he referred to incorrect and minor points made by the referees. Desk reject with what appeared to be constructive comments but on closer inspection were worthless (points already made in the paper). Oh well. 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. San Jose, CA. Bad experience, there was a long wait of mroe than 10 months to get 2 referee reports that did not like the the paper (but not so sure why). Desk rejection within two weeks. Accepted once I satisfied the referees. No comments at all from editor other than generic stuff. Contribution was an application of a specific method to an interesting case, referees made it a methodical paper by asking for a series of many different methods, As they claim to be able to give a first response within 8 weeks, I was a bit disappointed to recive it after 6 months. Long time to first response, given 3 months for a lengthy (single) report, but resubmitted and was accepted in like 3 hours. two years is a bit too long, especially given that it will take more than a year before the paper appears in the journal. There was supposed to be a third referee report that was not received, which may have been the reason for the time between submission to decision. The other is constructive but not as good. Depressing experience. 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. Kinda pissed. Clearly scanned the paper, deemed not general enough, and recommended other outlets. This page collects information about the academic mathematics job market: positions, short lists, offers, acceptances, etc. Good experience. The editor, Gideon Saar, was lazy and did not read the paper. Very helpful referee report. A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!! Not only is it accepted, but it also becomes a much better paper now. UCLA Economics. Comments were quite simple, I resubmitted after one month, and the editor accepted the paper after 40 days. At least the process was fast. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. It also tries to give advice, but not really doable. Will submit again. The most idiotic referees I've ever seen. Very happy with the editorial process. Besides, the editor's messages were rude. Crappy journal with crappy editor. 4.5 weeks to desk reject. Neither felt that the paper was a good fit for an urban journal. After 6 months I got an extremely low quality report; looked like the reviewer had no idea about the paper or even the field in general. Afwul experience. Kneller is a very good editor, the experience has been very good. It was clear that the referees read the paper and provided appropriate comments. Good reports. Not enough novelty. 4 months with the editor before being sent to referees. Finally withdraw. That indicates he/she did not finish reading the paper. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. 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. Extremely unprofessional. Seemed to have an agenda, as though I offended his work. Accepted after two rounds of revisions. Never submit again. Campus visits. Decent referee reports. After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. Very quick process! After about 1 year of wait, the editor decided to reject the submission on the basis of 1 report (2 referees did not respond) that contained only 2-3 lines that already work was done on the topic (although appreciating the empirical analysis). No refund. The structure of the game, the policy and strategy spaces and other concepts are not introduced with sufficient clarity. Such a waste of my valuable time. Engineering at HPE Analytic number theorists: your opinion on TK's claimed disproof of the RH ? No other comments. My paper was in "submitted" status for almost 5 months when made a query. Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small). Fast. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. Overall, very positive experience. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. Journal always replied to me saying it is delayed and I finally withdrew after 2 years with no response. It was a rejection but the editor (Abramitzky) read the paper and provided some additional comments that were helpful. Took some time due to lots of things to revise, but all the requests were fair. Contact Us 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 617-868-3900 info@nber.org webaccessibility@nber.org. editor is dumber than a second coat of paint. Two days between handing in the revision and acceptance. The referees responded very quickly and with excellent, high quality reports. Three poor reports. Basically useless, a waste of time. 3 weeks for a desk reject. Horner is a disaster! ref reports were to the point but could have been higher quality for amount of time under review, Two reports, one useful, one much less so. The top traffic source to econjobrumors.com is Direct traffic, driving 56.39% of desktop visits last month, and Organic Search is the 2nd with 42.93% of traffic. Another one was sharp. Less than 3 weeks for the first responses (major R&R) then accepted in less than a week. would? 2010 . Reflects really poorly on the journal to keep this guy. A bit slow but overall a good experience. The editor had good words about the paper but one ref didn't like it, so he rejected it. Polite / nice email from Editor. Useless reports. Very fast process. Both editor and referees liked the paper, comments from referees are on the point and constructive. Editor read and carefully considered the paper. Only one referee report in 11 months? AER:Insights. Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. 6 weeks to get 3 referee reports. One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. Other referee reports are okay, not very useful. Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. 2 students with mostly useless comments. 2 rounds after which referee recommended acceptance, but editor (Chakravorty) kept the paper for 7(!) 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) Standard experience with the JHR. No reports provided, but editor made brief helpful comments. One paragraph report when decision finally made. My previous rejection there was north of 6 months One very low quality report, one very thorough report. Two of them suggested a possible solution. multiple rounds, one of round took about a year. Editor claimed an expert in the field reviewed the paper while the referee admitted in his first sentence of the report that he is not. Unbelieveble how fast some journals work!!!!! Desk reject in a few hours with very impersonal email. The response was I forgot to pay the submission fee. Very good referee report. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. 2 was more critical. 1 reviewer was clearly an expert, 2 others were less thorough than might be expected, one recommended R&R the other did not read the paper was clearly ideologically biased, the editor sided with the latter, Quick process, referees made some good comments, not a bad experience, one positive referee report, one negative referee report. One good and two useless reports. one positive, one negative report. Quality Ref reports. 5 days. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School, Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO), Majewska (TSE), Seibel (Zurich), Deng (UMD), Lesellier (TSE), Vanhapelto (TSE), Suzuki (PSU), Leroutier (SSE), Lorentzen (BI Oslo), Guigue (CREST), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Bou Sleiman (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Moreno-Maldonado (CUNEF), Khalifa (AMSE), Kondziella (IIES), Merilinen (ITAM); see https://www.helsinkigse.fi/events/category:job-talk, Assistant/Associate/Full Professor - Environmental Economics, Song (USC), Kwon (Cornell), Sileo (Georgetown), Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Hyuk-soo Kwon (Cornell University), Sean McCrary (University of Pennsylvania), Gretchen Sileo (Georgetown), Stephanie Weber (Yale University), Sadhika Bagga (UT Austin), Ricardo Marto (University of Pennsylvania), Martin Souchier (Stanford University). Good reasons for rejection; comments improved paper for next submission. The peer review process was fast. 4 months for a desk rejection, frustratingly slow. Secodn editor waited almost 6 weeks after receiving the referee reports. Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper. Good quality reports for a low-ranked journal, though. 1 week. Horioka the editor. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. of? If you don't have that - expect to be desk rejected. helpful comments; quick process; good experience. Not submitting again to this journal. 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. A bit long for a short paper, comments were fair and detailed although they pointed the way to an R&R rather than rejection. two referee reports. I contacted the journal about that but no response. Awful experience. An associate editor left some comments, which showed that they read at least some of the paper. my ?defense,? It took 18 months after first revision. Editor probably didn't go beyond the abstract. Two rounds of R&R! No refund. candidates received letter saying search now closed- did anyone get the position? Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Economics of Food Consumption and Distribution. I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. not a fair process. Comments weren't helpful, but at least they didn't waste my time. And the whole process took us 8 months. Sometime he asks for favours from authors such as finding sponsors for special issues for other journals such as Emerging Markets Finance and Trade or ask authors to organise conferences and use the proceeding to cover the cost of the special issues. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. Learn More About Katia. Two years ago, I had a different paper rejected by EER, with two good referee reports and an AE negative about it. very good comments. General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,806) Micro Job Rumors (15,245) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,027) China Job Market (103,534) But the editor read the paper, and recommends Econometrica or JET or TE, Katz needed less time to skim the paper and offer a few good comments than I needed to write a one-sentence cover letter, It is a Finance paper. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable commentvery well run journal, fast and no submission fee! Tone of the reports harsher than at better journals. Was advised to submit to a field journal, Good reports, efficient process, we just didn't meet Katz's "general interest" standard, Surprised didn't get a desk reject. Francis Breedon is an efficient editor. Although my manuscript wa based on stochastic processes, editor rejected it since they were not expert in applied econometrics. Expected better, expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision. The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. I am currently studying the interaction between technological and demographic changes and the labor market.
City And Guilds 7307 Teaching Qualification,
Consommer Les Produits De La Mer Morte Islam,
Restart Scheme Complaints,
Articles E