Sounded like the referees couldn't let go off other papers' methodologies. Unfair letter from Emi N. Great letters from four referees and three of them are very positive! Hellwig rejected, suggested 2nd tier journal such as ET. Some fair some unwarranted comments. Editor (and referees) rejected based on bad fit and offered suggestions for where to submit next. Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. One referee report was fine. Definitely recommend submitting to the journal. 6 months was a lot to wait for one good report though Good feedback. Awesome experience. Bad experience with both the referee reports and the editor, Single RR, Editor said couldn't find a second reviewer. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. Got a slow desk rejection from LB telling me/us to cite someone I cited in the intro. Professional editor. The model is not presented in a clear and intelligible way. only one report (quite helpful). Seriously, avoid this journal. Poor report but good comments from the associate editor, Associate Editor and the reviewer provided excellent feedback, Very fast and easy, but useless reports and editors (which is what I wanted for a quick worthless pub). Very Fast. Good comments, made the paper better. Fast, but absolutely useless reports. The contribution of the paper is not suficient for the EJ. Really good advice from journal editor and 2 good reports. FYI: Your editor sucks). Very good experience: I wish all my rejected submissions were as fast and polite. Took 6 weeks. Never submit to this journal again. Editor should have told him to take a hike much earlier, especially when other refs suggested accept. Two useful reports (one with detailed but helpful suggestions), good editor. 1 R was for R&R, another for weak R&R, another for reject. Frustrating. Really unfortunate waste of time. Desk rejected, but after consultation with a referee who provided a mini-report. Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. I was pleased with the experience because I've never made this far with them. Both suggested rejection. Editor mentioned additional points and suggested a field journal as an alternative. Editor Chandra took four months to desk reject a straightforward empirical paper. 3 years for a desk rejection, after sending them at least 6 emails and filing a complain with the publisher. Other than that, the process was good. Great process, fast and fair. Editor rejected the paper, but it was not unexpected. editor very helpful. Editor suggests trying different journal. 1 report from a senior researcher, who thinks that our paper is a fine exercise but suits field journal better. Shleifer was the editor. It too me the editor 13 months to desk reject. Will avoid in the future. Extremely slow journal! Will submit again in the future! Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. Very weak reports. Very good referee reports. We saw no referee report and only had to deal with editor comments/suggestions. Bad experience. Just a one-paragraph report saying that the results are not "novel". No meaningful comments. Horrible. The editor read the paper carefully to make the decision. Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Editor actually read the paper. Editor not helpful at all. Referees' comments were useful. One report was very constructive and helped improve the qualitiy of the paper. 1 very good referee reports, 1 mediocre, editor was nice. Resubmitted and the editor rejected the paper on the basis of concerns that were never raised before in the process (and are incorrect IMHO). It also tries to give advice, but not really doable. Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. One short and one longer report. Some useful comments from his friend. One positive report, one mixed and one negative. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. Wasted 17 months. Rejected within 4 days with a decent explanation. Most horrible and bizarre referee reports. editor was nice enough to drop a page or so of precise and useful comments. overall v good experience. However comments from the negative one are the most detailled and helpful. Very good experience. Reports were ok, but total process took way too long. I will never submit these bullshits to the editor who trusts me. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. Referee was sharp, thoughtful, and thorough. Three short reports. Rejection after R&R. 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. Great comments from editors and referees. We agreed with most of the comments. The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. Both reports very helpful, AE comments showed that he did not understand the paper. Two referee reports, one critical, one encouraging. The paper was a very good fit though. No specfic comment on the paper. Editor just pointed at reports and made no obvious effort to think about the paper. Lousy reports showing lack of proper reading. Worse experience ever. Negative report is pretty bad. 1 positive but short & useless, 1 incompetent negative who didn't even understand the historical topic. Other two reports are fine, although one other also did not read a section, s/he says. Revision accepted after one day. complimentary with some comments but said focus was too narrow, Good feedback from eitor, very quick desk reject. Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful). The editor VanHoose made some good comments though. had to withdraw, Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. No surprising, but referee report was sloppy and incorrect. Editor misunderstood the findings, complained didn't understand the Y variable (maybe ease up on the word limit then). Either way, unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. Desk rejected in 25 minutes. 10 days for desk reject. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. might be a once in a career event. Generic rejection letter from the editor arguing lack of fit. A drawback is that it takes time. A journal to avoid. Notice that I submitted there on the basis of the widely publicized (EEA Gothenburg) fastness of this journal. Should be careful to submit. I am an assistant professor at Universit de Montral. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. Instead, they should've looked at B." They are also very slow! Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. Quite fast I'd say, but comments were simple. Good experience overall. Desk reject in a few hours with very impersonal email. Over 8 weeks for a desk reject due to poor fit for journal. At least was fast at just over two months. The referee must be some leading scholar in the field and I just wanna say thanks to him/her. Rejected after 2 weeks. Had to withdraw after ten months of waiting. Overall good experience. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. I don't think he/she took a wee bit of pain to find out the context. These rankings consider only the youngest economists registered with RePEc. Fair and quick process. Comments just so-so. It is not clear why the referee does not like the paper but it is clear he does not need 5 months for such a report. ~5 weeks. Not much insight from the editor, whose concerns were rather vague. 2 was more critical.
PhD Candidates in Economics | NBER A fairly high quality report, useful, within 24 days. Constructive and very specific.
2022-2023 China Job Market Wiki Economics Job Market Rumors One referee was extremely favourable, the other's comments were needlessly rude and completely hostile. Stay away from JAE. 19 Jun 2023. Submitted a really cool COVID-19 theory and emperical paper. Assistant Professor of Economics Columbia University Visiting Research Associate (2022-23) BFI at the University of Chicago Research Network Affiliate CESifo Network Links: Cognition and Decision Lab DRIPs Curriculum Vitae Google Scholar Contact:
[email protected] . Rejected but with excellent reports. One useless referee report claiming that we did not make robustness checks in a journal of 2000 letters! After revising the paper based on the comments of two referees, the Associate editor chimed in with his useless comments to reject the paper. Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. Referee only comments on the first half of the paper. Reject and resubmit. Clearly no effort was put into it. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a papers contribution. Journal of Economics and Finance Education. Desk reject in a week. Will probably not be using this journal again. Well argued rejection with helpful comments. One very good report. It took the editor 3 months to write two paragraphs and reject. some useful comments, but clear that the referee didn't spend a lot of time on the paper, nor take much effort to follow bits of it that weren't conventional. The paper got rejected anyways. Very good referees. (However, because there was only one referee, whose specialty aligned with only part of the paper, he/she barely attempted to comment on much of the paper, perhaps to its detriment.). Reports were not fair but at least fast response. Horner is a disaster! Not much to complain about. The second was more critical. After three months, I received an email from the editor that he still hasn't received the referee report, so he assumed the referee didn't like the paper and therefore he rejects it. desk rejected in 3 days. 1 positive and 1 negative report - Editor rejected. Average Quality R-Reports, one missed one has good comments. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, O. Mathematics Jobs Wiki. After waiting for 9 months, I sent an email to the editor asking about the paper status. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied. Good reports. Recommended field journal, and it was in fact eventually published in the top field journal. Reject. Overall positive experience. 2 referee reports: 1 very detailed recommending revisions; other useless. Very quick response. Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. Letter from the editor not so much informative. writing? His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting Decision based on 1 one-paragraph review that didn't refer to anything specific in the paper. 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. Useful ref reports and helpful comments from co-editor. Fit justification. The rejection was fine but took too long for a desk reject. Excellent desk reject by Larry S. Recommended a field journal by the editor. Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. Spent a week rewriting the paper according to requests of the editor ("put figures in the end of the paper" and such), then got a desk reject. He had nothing but praise for it and offered good suggestions. Very disappointing experience. Would try again. However, my paper is abotu China and Institutions, two things strongly encouragede according to their mission statement. Overall- great experience. Decent reports. Desk reject in one week. Just one very low quality report. bargaining? 3 reports: 2 of them really good, one mediocre. If you don't have that - expect to be desk rejected. Pretty smooth process, with Eric Leeper being very kind and helpful. 1 very weak report, 1 very useful, AE's report extremely weak. Sounds fair. a 2 paragraph referee report that was not particularly helpful - at least the turnaround time was fast - might as well have been a desk rejection, Very low quality reports. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). JFM is bad! Second round took 30 minutes, from submission to acceptance. One referee was OK with almost no comments. 12.5 euro (exclusive of VAT) for each hour it sat with them. The other was much more careful. Editor read the paper and outlined clear and fair reasons for rejection. Editor had a "confidential" report that he wouldn't share, and on the basis of that chose rejection. One report of 10 lines with one minor comment and the other one, longer but with also minor comments. Made some changes, argued against other changes, got accepted. Fast decision after resubmit. Desk reject within two weeks. Two rounds of R&R. He clearly did not read the paper and wrote a pretty much standard rejection that had nothing to do with the paper. Fast and fair. One where the only material comment has a grammatical error that makes understanding it difficult? 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. Nice words from Editor. Excellent experience. Crappy reports. Amazing efficiency. Good experience. Despite disappointing turnout, reports were good with useful and specific suggestions on ways to improve the paper. The IJIO has a rapid review process. fair decision, Super quick desk rejection because paper uses archive data but isn't really econ hist, 6 months plus to first decision - then substantial time between R&R rounds, with pednatic comments which mostly wanted to remove the economics from the paper to the appendix. Recommend field journals, Useful letter from the editor Dirk Krueger (aprox. Neither felt that the paper was a good fit for an urban journal. Good experience. Waste of money. One furstrating assertion by the editor. Two entirely reasonable reports. Poorly managed editorial process. Great experience. The editor also read the paper and gave very good comments and suggestions. Comments based entirely on abstract. An associate editor left some comments, which showed that they read at least some of the paper. I will try in the future. the journal is recovering. Very bad experience. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. Useful comments from the editor who had to stand in for the unresponsive second referee. My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. Currently 20 months of waiting after first submission. No response for seven and a half months. Very poor experience. I really appreciated the clarity the editor provided in helping to navigate the referee reports. In print a couple of weeks later. Good reasons for rejection; comments improved paper for next submission. Very fast and professional referee reports. This is why our profession sucks. It's going to be most accurate for economics, political science, public policy & other professional schools. Waste of time. within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. had no economic relevance and was not worth being sent out to a referee. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. 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. Overall very fast process. 2 positive. Got 3 ref reports - 1 RR 2 reject. First response was very good (and positive), still there was a long waiting afterwards. Very quick response. A waste of 250$ and time. Don't submit here. Found out it was rejected only by contacting them. Poor reports. One very useful report from a critical referee, and one mediocre. One ref suggested I send it to JPE before trying places like EJ or ReStat. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. Great experience. Referees obviously did not read the paper. The referee just want to reject and did not want to spend reasonable effort to read your paper. Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). Overall good experience. 2 constructive reports that improve the paper after 2 months. Under two month for two reports. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. One positive and one negative. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. Editor seemed to have liked the paper despite ref rejection. Terrible report. oh they're good! Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. Said the paper was to mathematical/econometrical for the journal. long waiting time. no negative comments, just say that the contribution is not big enough for Econometrica, which is completely understandable. Overall very good experience. Editor was polite. The final version of the proof was more elegant as a result, I am very appreciative of the reviewers and the editor. Editor wrote report himself. UCLA Economics. Finance Job Rumors (489,470) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,758) Micro Job Rumors (15,233) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,523) Industry Rumors (40,348) Good experience. 2 months for desk rejection is awkward. A nice formated letter saying that the topic was not interesting enough for the audience of the Journal. Appreciate the quick turnaround. Average time between rounds of R&R (months), EJMR | Job Market | Candidates | Conferences | Journals | Night Mode | Privacy | Contact.
EJM - Econ Job Market 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. First R&R was fair, 2 good ref.
This is why I'll never get married Economics Job Market Rumors After 14 month a desk rejection arrived. one positive, one flat reject review, the editor decided to reject. The editor, Richard Rogerson, is very careful and handles the paper in a timely manner. So do keep an eye on the paper and cotnact the editor if necessary. Very good experience. Cannot say the paper improved significantly, but it did not get worse either. Rejection reason shows Meghir did not read the paper, bad editor dull comments. Two years later still waiting for referee reports. Good reviews by the referee and the AE. The closures follow the consequences of the 2020 BLM-Antifa riots that . Two weeks desk reject. Three high quality reports that have helped to improve the paper. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. Fast process, but very poor reviewer report. Excellent process. Comments like "I do not understand the findings of this study" show that the journal is not what it used to be. Avoid at all costs, International Review of Economics and Finance. The AE also provided his own review.
50% of Americans believe US should support Ukraine 'as long as it takes Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. Brief comment from the editor. One paragraph report when decision finally made. I stopped reading after that). Editor gave me chance to convince other referee. In May 2016 the editor promised a decision within a days. All the referees understood what I did in great detail. Ok referee reports. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). Pretty stupid rationale based on lack of methodological innovation. Great outcome. good reports, great editor who replies promptly to queries. Not submitting again to this journal. journal does not sound like a good fit for my research agenda. Only one referee report in 11 months? Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Very positive experience. Referees were obviously a bad choice for this topic. High quality, detailed referee reports, which substantially improved the paper. Super efficient handling by Prof. Sarte. Waited 6 months for one report, from which it was clear that the referee hadn't even read the paper properly. Hastily written by PhD student. Good experience. Very clubby journal. Accepted, no referee reports. I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. No complains. Slow process (but exactly as advertised) and fair judgment. Nice experience. Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. Good report and conditionally accepted with minor revisions. 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). One refree report who made very useful comments that helped significantly improve the paper. According to the editor, the paper has some merit, but is too specialized for EL. Extensive delay for referee reports apparently due to unresponsive referee. (As we've seen, courtesy of Raj Chetty and Diamond/Mirrlees, sometimes they split your paper and accept.). Journal always replied to me saying it is delayed and I finally withdrew after 2 years with no response. 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. The associate Editor Ali Kutan has rejected the paper. Maybe paper is not good enough, but the "report" was not convincing either. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. The secondary market "Scramble". Reports were semi thorough and okay, appreciated the fairly quick response, The referees raised concerns that we were not able to see before, and they were fair. From the abstract to the conclusion, we kept arguing like "A is not the main point, we should look at B." One report was not very helpful. Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. Good reports. The most disgusting journal I have ever encountered. Download the MIT Economics Job Market Packet. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. Turnaround times are reasonable though. No way to check on status. Paper eventually got accepted at higher ranked journal (!). Desk rejection within two weeks. I do not think that the referee understood my paper. Some of the most useful and thorough referee reports I've gotten. Accepted after two rounds. Editor appeared to have at least glanced at the paper. Not a good experience. This is a wiki for tracking searches in various categories for academic (i.e. Not recommended. 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. EconJobRumors.com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is a website for academic economists. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. reviewer knew an aspect of the literature and appeared to promote his own unpublished paper under review at the same journal. Suggested top field (JPubE in our case). When pressed, editor said we weren't doing the same things as everyone else. Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. Would never submit anything to these people again and would never recommend to anyone else either. 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. Upon inspection these papers are only superficially related. 19 Jul 2023. Comments are mainly about rephrasing implications and minor issues. Good communication with the editor, very helpful referee report. The editor rejected based on flimsy reasons. One obviously senior who doesn't care, openly says didn't read some parts. Very poor referee reports. Not interested in the topic, acceptable decision. The reports were largely useless. reports, the reports were all nice an constructive. One referee for sure did not read the paper as pointed things which were actually in the paper. Terribly run journal and I wouldn't advise anyone to submit there. Long wait, decision was communicated with a delay of 3 months after reports had been received. To be honest, I had a hard time understanding exactly what the point of your paper is. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. Desk reject in 7 days. Same referee as for a previous submission to a high-ranked journal. 6 weeks to get 3 referee reports. Efficient. ", Two reports - one thorough and one probably by a grad student, One associate editor recommended rejection and no other comments/suggestions, but one referee provided very useful comments and s/he seems to be positive about the paper.