Shame on Co-Editor. 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. very good comments. Referee was perceptive and pointed out serious flaws in the first draft. 19. 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(I post one row which has the wrong info on journal name, should be JPE rather than QJE). Some feasible and some not feasible suggestions. Very respectless! University of Sheffield. Decision by editor (Mark Taylor): minor revision and resubmit. Editors only pick those with close network. Desk rejected in 2 weeks, editor recommended sending the paper to a field journal. 2 good reports, clearly improved the paper. Sent email to the corresponding editor after 6 months review, but no response. Very good referee reports - largely positive but requiring some modifications, deleting one section. The editor clearly had a look at least at the introduction and gave encouraging comments. Desk rejected as outside the scope of the journal. My impression is that the editor didn't even bother looking at the paper. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. Two useful ref reports in the first round. Referee 1 happy with resubmission (no further comments), referee 2 suggested rejection or major rewriting. OK comments from referee. Reasonably quick. One referee was in favour of a strong R&R, the other recommended rejection on the basis of mathematical error, the AD seconded the latter. After the second round R&R, I only had to deal with the long reviewer. Fantastic experience (accepted first round), Directly accepted within one month. Good comments. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. Avoid if possible. Good reports - detailed and constructive. Not enough novelty. Easiest publication of my life! Charging for this should be a crime. Employers may also contact the students and their . The time to response is not long as well. Six page referee report after 8 months, answered everything the ref wanted, on second round he said I didn't answer his comments at all (despite a further 10 page reply) and rejected. Very tough report on the first RR, extensive changes suggested, though all feasible and mostly all improved the quality of the paper. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. This guy really needs to not be a referee if he can not do a thorough job in actually reading paper. But then again it was my fault, I didn't run an experiment! Job Description Linkedin.com. I didn't expect an accept here, but I def did not expect to be rejected on the grounds of such poor review reports. Editor clearly asked some half-literate grad student to write a negative review. Fair enough. Rejected with a 1-page AE report, after almost 3 months. Second round was down to one ref and editor, third round was just editor. First decision in 2 months. +6 months for a desk rejection without a single comment. good reports, great editor who replies promptly to queries. Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations, two reports, comments not always very clear on what was wanted but still helpful. I got two rounds of R&R. Armstrong is so much better than Hermalin 6 months for the first R&R (2 referee reports plus a very detailed report from the editor), then 3 months for the 2nd R&R, then the paper was accepted. 1 reviewer R&R, two reject. Very happy with the process, definetly a favorite for future. Focus of decision appeared to be on the institutional context of the paper rather than considering the economics. Job Market. desk rejected after thee months. Editor suggested that paper was better suited for JDE (LOL). never submit to this journal again. Boilerplate "contribution not significant enough", two months pretty long for a desk reject, but can't really complain about the desk reject itself because the paper is not so great. Both editor and referees liked the paper, comments from referees are on the point and constructive. Excellent handling. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. Two month for two detailed reports. Candidate Job Market Roster. The editor (Mallick) gave us some additional advice and was ok with the result. report and a couple of pretty good ones. Editor uninterested. Good enough experience and fair. In general, it is difficult to follow the derivations due to a lack of intuitive explanations. the journal is recovering. reports: 1 ridiculous, 1 useless, 1 useful, 6 months from initial submission to acceptance. Galor and the referees felt the contribution wasn't substantial enough. I sent off the revision less than 24 hours after the R&R. The best rejection letter ever received. The third referee recommended acceptance, but the editor rejected. Editor handled it well. Avoid at all costs.. One was thoughtful report, pointed to at least one direction we can improve. One very good, detailed, and positive report. 1 serious person pushing his method. Crappy journal with crappy editor. As a theoretical contribution, it is not sufficient for Economics Letters. Awesome experience. In the end, the editor reject the article. This page collects information about the academic mathematics job market: positions, short lists, offers, acceptances, etc. Very efficient. Should be careful to submit. KS super smart and constructive feedback. The referee suggested rejection, and the associate editor agreed. 19 Jun 2023. Horrible reports. Horrible experience. It took the referees / editor 5 months to look at my revised script to then just accept it without any further comments. 2 reports minimal work, 1 report some work. Smooth process. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. Quick, professional, very acceptable decision. The other one, who wanted extra revises, was a bit of stupid. Editor then agreed. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. Do yourself a favor: if you have a journal that fits the topic of this journal, just submit it to JPopEcon, LE or the new Journal of Economics of Ageing. Rejected by editor with a comment that referees might not like the paper, Desk rejected after 1 month without any comments. (Shouldn't these cases be desk-rejected instead of being rejected after 6 months?). 1 good, 1 okay and one bad review. You received a high fee, you explain at least one sentence about your decision making. Two weeks for a desk rejection. Not much insight from the editor, whose concerns were rather vague. Good referee reports, very nice editor (Thomas Lange), International Journal of Production Economics. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. No feedback at all. Not very impressed. Great process, fast and fair. Received desk rejection from one of the editors quoting results completely unrelated to my paper. I received an answer of the editor after 2 months. Pretty stupid rationale based on lack of methodological innovation. One of the best run journals in macro. Helpful comments from referees and editor. 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. Editor rejected because paper topic (public finance) is not what tey are currently looking for. Neither felt that the paper was a good fit for an urban journal. Editor Chandra rejected with one ref report. great experience. A lot of small nit-picky criticism and some factually wrong statements about paper. Reviewers' concerns are reasonable but they didn't provide helpful suggestions. Result not general enough for ECMA. Horrible process. Avoid avoid avoid this outlet if you are looking for a serious journal that will follow a fair referee process. super slow for what they give. 2 months after first submission of manuscript. The paper would be a good fit. Super fast process than I had expected. Waste of time, Ok process, but referees either did not read the paper carefully or were inexpert in the field, Referee does not understand the purpose of the paper, clearly not a specialist of the field ; published elsewhere. Very fast reject and they sent my check back. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience. he clearly read the paper. Good experience. The referees loved it, very positive comments. The editor barely read the paper and decided to just reject it At least it was quick response - 11 days. Editor was super helpful. Comments were sharp and precise and resulted in a much better paper. R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. At least the process was fast. Editorial board review and then rejection. suggest some field journals. Desk rejected but the co-editor read the manuscript carefully and gave substantive comments. 1 good report and 1 not so good. He, however, had the balls to apologize for the delay. If the editor tought the paper did not fit the scope of the journal, he should have rejected it at the very beginning of the process, without engaging in a peer-review. Instead, they should've looked at B." Minor comments from editor who appears to have at least gotten the gist of the paper. Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Fast and friendly. Editor decided to not even send the revised paper back to the referees. Only have issues with one of the reviewers. Absolutely idiotic low-quality comments. 9 days. All three schools are exceptional but UChicago is particularly strong in Econ as well as other core subjects such as polisci and philosophy. However we had make all of the referee's suggestions and the outcome was not positive. Would try again. 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. Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work.". The editor and AEs should be immediately replaced. Interesting but not a good fit. At least it was fast I guess. Desk rejected in 10 days. Good experience. Considered waste of time here. Andrew deJong The Effect of Common Ownership on Pricing: Evidence from the Airline Industry . The editor's comments are not informative. happy for a quick decision. One single bad report. Accepted as it is. First report provided helpful insights, second - only half page of general comments. This would be fine if desk-reject was motivated by "not a good fit" or such. Editor was Mogde. useless reports referees didn't seem to read the paper and appeared not to be experts .. Desk-rejected in 7 days: "the paper lacks sufficient political economy content to be appropriate". Editor guidance also helpful. Useless referee reports--one was just a single short paragraph. Paper went multiple rounds over 2 years. At least the fee is refunded. Terribly disappointing experience. One positive report, one mixed and one negative. Non professionalism of editor and referee: one referee asked to modify the paper and upon seeing the changes did reject saying that I should have done the way it was done in the first place. Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. Welcome to the EconTrack Job Market Information Board, a service hosted by the AEA. One useless report, and one very useful report. 1 month for R&R, 1 week for acceptance after revision submitted. The other `meh'. 9 months for 1 2-page referee report. 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 fairly high-quality report, one not-so good. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. Professional co-editor and referee. Unfortunately, this is my usual experience with EER. Had to withdraw after waiting for nearly a year and a half. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. Unfair decision. Fair decision. Please add AERi to the combo box. 3 weeks. No report yet. Fast turnaround. One of the best outlet for phd students. As we addressed all issues in between and it better fitted EL, it was accepted without revision. Excellent and rapid process, with clear comments and instructions from referees and editor. Editor argued I had observational data and no identification, hence instant rejection. Rejection based on fit. Process lasted one year with nontransparent, contradictory review process. Candidate Job Market Roster: Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. Received two referee reports and a review from the associate editor within two months of initial submission. Poor / no justification for decision. One decent, the other sloppy. Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. This journal is a joke. The report was very entensive and it required a lot of extra work but it was insightful as well (however, as always, we had to compromise in some things we were not fully convinced the referee was right). Really involved editor and a referee who suggested changes that, while complex, were easy to deal with. Two decent referee reports. Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! Submitted reports from a previous (close) referee rejection at a higher ranked journal. One referee suggested R and R. Other referee rejected (AE and DE supported this). R&R only takes one week. No refund. Rejected with 2 reviews on the grounds of insufficient contribution to literature. Although I withdrew my article, editor sent me a rejection letter in a very rude manner. Was desk rejected in one day. Quick desk rejection. 2 Reports. The other referee was also good and liked the paper. Main editor Wilson takes care of it. Don't know why Elsevier is silence about this behavior from Batten. Terrible referees. Excellent experience, the editor was clear on what is required after first round RR. very efficient process but experience depends crucially on editor. 2 mildly useful reports. After revising the paper based on the comments of two referees, the Associate editor chimed in with his useless comments to reject the paper. Happy with process. Will not b submitting here again until editorial board changes. E Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; F3 International Finance; F4 Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance; Banco de la Republica, the Colombian central bank, is interested in hiring a new or experienced Ph.D. economists to work as a researcher/economist.. The other report was *atrocious*. Very quick response. econjobrumors.com Top Marketing Channels. Desk rejected within 3 days with idiotic comments, as usual. One decent and one sloppy report, 1 good report, 1 bad one, decent turnaround time. multiple rounds, one of round took about a year. I don't think he/she took a wee bit of pain to find out the context. Round 2 also yielded good referee reports too. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. Quickly accepted after the revisions were completed. Some unfair comments about replicating what other papers have done (which are already discussed in the paper!) Excellent Experience. The referee reports were also awful. Two very good reports, one probably written by the editor. Decent referee report, acceptance 3 days after submitting revision. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. Editor (frank) did not read the paper and wrote 2 lines arguing that there were many papers addressing similar question (which was not entirely true). Two referee reports and one report from the associate editor. Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. May have a good chance at a higher ranked outlet but if considered speed and diversification then it was a good and correct decision to submit here. Why don't black people open carry and call it 2nd amendment rights? Had a paper published there recently. This particular group controlling urban economics now will not let any differing view go through AER and JUE. We'll see. Repeated enquiries ("hey, its been a year now") have been followed by profuse apologies. High quality, detailed ref. Have they done first-round interviews? Desk reject after 3 days. Single-blind review system for a 250 bucks fee. Response was less than two months from submission -- super quick. Got a slow desk rejection from LB telling me/us to cite someone I cited in the intro. Somewhat useful comments from Department Editor. Very efficient process, paper improved with referee comments. Very fast. Job Market Paper: Local Polynomial Estimation of Time-Varying Parameters in GMM. Never submit again. It ended up being published in a higher ranked journal. Editor was US-based and said that she likes the idea though! Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. Good referee report + some comments from AE. Even though I debunked his claims every time, he was just coming up with new ones. Our claims were supported. Paper desk rejected in 3 days. Excellent Editorial Comments. Unbelievably fast and helpful. Ref. low-quality referee reports. After resubmitting, accepted in 2 weeks without going to referees. Pretty good experience. 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. SIX MONTHS for a desk reject. Low quality referee reports. 3 months for a summary reject by the editor. Good communication with the editor, very helpful referee report. Invites for 2nd round zoom interviews sent today. Very bad experience. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper, no longer a serious all purpose journal imho; "desk reject" after 6 mos on the basis of style in the abstract, Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded, One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end, Terrible experience. Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. The editor is incredible. Complete waste of 10 months and $200. Two solid referee reports. 2 weeks). Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. Quick turnaround time for the first R&R, but very slow for the last round. Took 9 months for acceptance. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. Good experience, Revision accepted by editor within two days after re-submission. 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. very thorough with helpful suggestions for revision. Very efficiently run journal (at least my experience). The editor said some good words but also said he could not turn over the recommendation. Interesting use of a referee's time. Helpful and honest reviews. Conveyed no sense at all that anyone even looked at the paper. We got referee rejection in 2.5 months: 2 referees, one favours RR, other rejects. one so-so report and one excellent report, Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. Desk rejected in 6 hours. Great experience. Helpful comments from reviewer and editor. Two very useful ref reports in the first round. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. Special issue editor started to referee himself. No reply yet. 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. 2.5 months to get a RR. Contribution too small. Editor was respectful and not full of himself. As best I can tell, the purpose is to use a particular modeling framework to illustrate that a trade policies defined in terms of 'import-export' quotas cannot yield a Nash equilibrium of the trade game. The referee must be some leading scholar in the field and I just wanna say thanks to him/her. 1 good report and 1 not so good. Such along time frame for such a poor assessment of the paper. Faculty of Economics Austin . Reason: topic/results too narrow with respect to broad audience. Encouraging and polite comments from editor. Editorial work was very fair - gave an R&R despite split reports. After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. But I understand it may not have been a good fit. Basically got a response on the next working day following a weekend. Desk rejected by Sarte in 3 days without comments. Recently Announced. One report very solid and useful, another (two-paragraph one) looks confusing. Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. Controversial journal. Got accepted after 2nd round. So-so experience. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. Good handling by the editor. Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. One was good and one was particularly bad with a lot of non-english expressions. Editor actually read the paper. Katia Meggiorin. Editor obviously read the paper. Would submit again. Excellent comments from reviewers. Emailed journal to withdraw submission after 14 months. Long and slow desk reject. 6 months to first response, then a two sentence ref report, one sentence of which was clarified extremely quickly and one that entailed a ton of extra work. Nice words from Editor. Very good experience. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. Three good reports and fair decision. In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. Good feedback from AE too. Home Help Search Welcome Guest. Culter said that there was backlog at JHE. Brief comment from the editor. He is the main contact person for employers who have questions about a candidate's vita . Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Putea MatuaWellington - New Zealand, Assistant Director, Economics Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. Most efficient experience with journals ever! Desk rejected after 23 hours. He suggested a more suitable outlet. A true scholar and a gentleman. The referee completely misunderstood a *very* basic primary school model and then went on to criticize and complain about the empirical results. Rather pleasant experience. Liran Einav 650-723-3704 leinav@stanford.edu. Good strong editors. 1 report from a senior researcher, who thinks that our paper is a fine exercise but suits field journal better. My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. complete waste of time, Very nice editor's letter. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. Think one more time before sending here. Even disappointing outcome, three constructive reports, one of them extremely helpful. What can i say more? Only one report. a? but i think it is an important one that should be considered a bonafide econ journal. I revised as a new submission based on comments from a previous reviewer at the journal, referee report was short, but demonstrated expertise, could have addressed all of the comments but ultimately rejected under KS. Super efficient handling by Prof. Sarte. . plus for a quick turnaround. Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow. One extremely useful and one useless report. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee. Good process (and none of the coauthors are from 02139). One report was an absolute travesty and surely had to be disregarded. Good reports, but what a punch in the gut. Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. 1 week: nice, but no fit with general interest. Two referees, two weak R&Rs, editor rejects despite the recommendations of referees. Can't really complain about the speed, North American Journal of Economics and Finance. Desk reject within 1 day. Completely unacceptable. I had. others ref reports okay. Very fast experience at last. Advisors: Raquel Fernndez, Martin Rotemberg, Elena Manresa. !. San Jose, CA. Of these, 90 graduates (72%) chose positions at academic institutions and 38 graduates (27%) chose non-academic . Comical journal. There is no option to choose 'Referees Accepted' but 'Editor Rejected'. One nice and one not nice referee. No evidence anyone read the paper, even though they probably have the highest submission fee among econ journals. All reports were useful and very demanding. Overall, great experience. The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. Revise and Resubmit. 3 Reports. It was most likely copy-pasted from someone elses decision letter, and I know this because they forgot to change the name on it (yes, I received a decision letter with someone else's name on it). The reports were very brief (. Second was uninformative. It is run by "Kirk", [2] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. Two referee reports very useful, pointing to the same concerns, one of them quite positive and friendly, providing numerous pathways to pursue in the future. Zero constructive comments! Summary understated contribution of the paper making it looking boring. 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. Bad experience overall. A long wait but not very helpful comments. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. One good report (weak r&r). Suggested Ecological Economics. Desk rejected in 25 minutes. Katz wrote his usual bs about my fascinating paper. I only regret not withdrawing this. Excellent and clear communication with editors. Pleasant experience. the revision requirements seem achievable. Went from reject/resubmit to revise resubmit 1, revise resubmit 2, finally accepted. And because he could not find theoretical contributions. Second report very good. Editor was kind and offered some useful remarks. Extremly disappointing for a journal which claims to be the number one field journal. I don't know what to add. 1 helpful report. Aarhus University, Department of Economics and Business Economics, School of Business and Social Sciences: Eric Hillebrand http://econ.au.dk/job-market-candidates . [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors is only lightly moderated and preserves posters' anonymity. One very good report, the other OK. Economics Job Market Threads. E. Two detailled and useful reports, one irrelevant. The worst experience so far. I would submit again or recommend this outlet! Two referees were lukewarm but couldn't really point out too much that was wrong. Could have been more lucky with referees, but at least it was very efficient. From here on, AEJs are the way to go outside top 5. Two very helpful reports and encouraging letter from AE. No comments from the editor though. The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress. Extremely poor experience. Overall, bad experience. One very good review, two quite missed points. Very smooth process. A black bitch barks at East Europe. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. Desk rejected within 7 days. 12 months and waiting. Constructive feedback from AE. Nice rejection letter. Encouraging words from editor, good experience. Editor was Barro. Fast. 2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. Long wait, decision was communicated with a delay of 3 months after reports had been received. R&R in two months. Desk reject with generic letter at 3 weeks. Reviewers gave substantive comments and significantly improved the paper. Mostly decent reports raising fair points, OK experience.
Redwood Gazette Court News,
6 Shot Mortar Rack Plans,
10 Regiment Royal Corps Of Transport,
Articles E
econ job market rumors wiki