Very disappointing experience. Extensive reviews though. Slightly more informative than a desk rejection. Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. Rejected on pretty poor grounds by an associate editor. Long wait for such an outcome, 3 reports and Editor provides some good suggestions within 10 weeks. Seemed not to like the idea of the paper without actually reading it. Recommend field journals, Useful letter from the editor Dirk Krueger (aprox. After 10+ years in a research institution, counless submission, countless rejections, and some papers published in highly ranked journal, this was definitely my worst experience ever. Galor and the referees felt the contribution wasn't substantial enough. A very similar paper came out a month after our paper got rejected, new paper's authors are closely tied to this journal. Editor: "Far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal". Constructive referee report. Editor wrote a few short comments. recommended Journal of Development Economics. Editor didn't waste any time on accepting after first revision. Very useful comments. Slow process (but exactly as advertised) and fair judgment. Not good enough for general interest. I think s/he would have been satisfied by an appendix section on the issue raised. Two sloppy reports, one useful. Desk rejection (standard email). They will help to improve the paper. Seems safe to ignore the submission guideline: "In tables, please report standard errors in parentheses but do not use *s to report significance levels.". Not too bad an experience. Clearly the paper was not good enough for the JIE. Desk rejected thoughtelessly with curious comment paper read more like a book, 8 month desk reject with no reports--JPE is dead to me, desk rejected in a bit over a week, not clear who handled the paper. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. Took about 2.5-3 months for first response which detailed a lot of work - two R & R decisions, each of which took about 2 months for referees to get back on. the referee report adds nothing, and the editor rejects based on the meaningless report. Editor followed the second report. It would be a positive experience if submission were free. One referee report was very good; the second was also modestly helpful. Bazinga! Mess with the submission, as they were changing editors. Reasonable decision. After waiting for 6 months, I sent a polite email to the editor asking if the paper fell through the cracks. Initial response slow, then extremely quick after R&R. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. Overall I feel paper rejected because of third negative review. One single bad report. 1 was very low quality -- couple of bullet points that made clear reviewer had not read paper. One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. Should be careful to submit. The paper is in between energy and finance, and the referees were more knowledgable of Energy than Finance, where our approach is more standard I'd say. The other referee recommended revision. A very good experience. Poor. Good feedback from AE too. Suggested AEJ:AE, RESTAT and top field. Submitted 4 February, rejected 29 December with 1 ok referee report that had been submitted in May. Also very fast. 3 reports in 28 days. The model is not in AE's taste. Focus of decision appeared to be on the institutional context of the paper rather than considering the economics. Co-editor and one referee attacked the paper for something that the paper already explicitly adresses. Will never submit to this journal again. Despite the rejection, referees raised valid points that we can adress to improve our paper and provided a way forward. Long waiting for 10 months, send 3 emails to ask, reply: under review, some useful comments from ref despite recommending reject. Overall, the decision was not fair. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. low quality and very short referee report Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Two referee reports. He/she also asked unrelated information such as why the market offer two similar contracts, which is not the scope of the study. Contribution too small. One few sentence report after 5 month. Great experience. Received acceptance on the same day i resubmitted the paper. Clearly he had read the paper. That thing (s)he claimed was wrong was in fact trivially correct, but the referee was completely clueless. other outlets are suggested. Helpful comments received from reviewers. They all got published in other journals and a book. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Editor obviously read over the paper and gave a couple of helpful comments. After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. Actually a nice experience. Most dishonest rejection. Could have been more lucky with referees, but at least it was very efficient. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. Although QJE may be one of the oldest professional journal of economics published in the English language, it is also stale. Editor provided some friendly comments. Very short and no relevant comments. rejected after 2 rounds of revisions. Went downstairs for some snack. 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. Two rounds of R&R. Rejected based on 1 helpful referee report. Ultimately, Editor rejected as felt it was not general purpose enough. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. Quickest desk rejection ever experienced. Comments are helpful. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. others ref reports okay. 2 was more critical. Unacceptable waiting time. It has been about 16 months now. Worst referee report ever with unsubstantiated claims. Fair rejection. Rejected after revision for reasons that had nothing to do with the revision and should've been brought up on the first decision. Fair referee reports, but I had to wait pretty long. I'd submit there again in the future. complete waste of time, Very nice editor's letter. Helpful reports, overall good experience. Editor sat on completed reports for 3 months before making a decision. Extremely efficient process with good comments by referees. No comments at all from editor other than generic stuff. It took 3 weeks to get a desk reject letter. After careful consideration, the JAPE editorial team considers the paper is largely a statistics exercise. the ?Nash? 2 weeks for desk reject. Desk reject with what appeared to be constructive comments but on closer inspection were worthless (points already made in the paper). The paper was not sent to the referee but instead the editor said it was reviewed by the editorial board. Went from reject/resubmit to revise resubmit 1, revise resubmit 2, finally accepted. 3 reports. Avoid at all cost. Editor suggests trying different journal. Multiple inquiries with a response: "once the reviews are completed, the editor will make a decision". Very good experience. One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. All suggest major revision and change of approach. 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) Paper very close to editor's (Rogerson) field of interest. Extremely slow journal and not well managed journal. Under 2 weeks for a desk reject. Some valid points, but overall Kahn's criticism was thin. very rigorous comments. May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. While the ref rejection runied my day, I must conclude that the process was very efficient and the editors/refs earned every penny of the submission fee based on the feedback I received. Will submit here again. I pulled the paper and send it elsewhere. Absolutely idiotic low-quality comments. Not so much from the Associate Editor. Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work.". The referee reports were good. Paper has since been published. JEDC is well run. Considered waste of time here. If? Actually, 57 months in total. Editor was respectful and not full of himself. recommend to send to some other theory journals but those theory journals have said I should send to this journal. Instead, they should've looked at B." Down side: reports are quite short: 1 paragraph each. It was clear the editor asked a former student to be the referee, I guess the editor does not feel positively about the paper. The most thoughtful and detailed review I've ever had. fair and efficient process. Smooth process and manageable referee report. Very fast; useful, reasonably positive report despite rejection. The editor emailed me after 6 days and said he read and liked the paper. Helpful and honest reviews. This Rumors site allows only a maximum of 12 months from submission to decision. That's right. Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE. Great letter from Nezih G and two good referee reports. Most horrible and bizarre referee reports. The latter may be fine but it is clear that the referee did not read the paper very carefully. The new editor rejected the paper 2 days after submitted it. Useful comments from the editor (Stefan Nagel). Not interested in the topic, acceptable decision. Tough but receptive referees. Editor felt like the requests made by reviewers were too significant to warrant an R&R, but we did eventually expand the study and it was reconsidered as a new submission. 3 constructive and useful reports. Rejected and no reason given. Co-editor felt nothing "wrong" with paper but does not made enough of a contribution to warrant publication. Six weeks for a desk reject with no reasons offered, Under editor's evaluation for almost 2 months. I wish we had drawn a different editor. With hindsight, I got much more out of submitting this paper to TE. 3 Reports. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. The other referee was also good and liked the paper. Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. One referee for sure did not read the paper as pointed things which were actually in the paper. All the referees understood what I did in great detail. 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). Horrible editorial process. but i think it is an important one that should be considered a bonafide econ journal. instantaneous rejection, however, without any comments, 5 Weeks for a desk reject without comments. Recently Announced. They pointed out several issues of my paper, but they are either wrong or something that can be easily fixed. We agreed with most of the comments. Not recommended. Within a week, Laura Schechter clearly went through the paper and give it a thought with a couple of helpfull comments. Desk Reject in a Week but it did come with two pages of notes and questions that should help the paper. Took a long time for first response which suggested feasible changes and asked for a revised submission. Some reviewers disappeared after the first review, the editors could't even find an alternative, and the comments were not assessed critically by the editors due to an editorial change. after more than 3 months still "with editor". Unanswered letters to editor by the 6th and 12th months after submission, only got reply after getting in touch to editorial office. Title: Researcher Location: COLOMBIA JEL Classifications:. But first response took a whole year. Fair decision. Resubmitted and then conditional accepted within a week. Short turn around time. Good editing process. Referees lukewarm, Foster took time and effort to explain his decision, also indicated a number of pathways to strengthen the paper. 10 lines not even sure they read the paper. After 14 month a desk rejection arrived. Good experience overall, took more than 1 year to get one referee report. inquiry after 6 month: "several referees invited but still no reports", rejected after 9 month: "sent the paper to four reviewers but only received two reports". Job Market. Good experience overall, only took 2 weeks, two short reports, one very useful. Good reports - detailed and constructive. One high quality report. Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. Good experience, even my paper was rejected. International Journal of Finance and Economics. One of the papers has over 3000 citations. Generic letter. Ok referee reports. It took them 13 months to tell us that the article was better suitable for a different journal, Generic Desk Reject - Fortunately they only took 2 days. Awfully slow. It's the kind of disappointment that makes you stop caring about research. Editor clearly asked some half-literate grad student to write a negative review. This journal still has the word economics in its tile, please stop asking clueless marketing types to referee! Slow but good experience overall. Good report, positive rec. That sounds fair to me. The editor rejected the manuscript without any useful comments. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so." No additional comment from the editor. ~5 weeks. 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. Following a previous piece of info: Desk rejected by another editor after almost 2 months, looking at the reason for rejecting the paper I had the feeling the editor did not read the paper. Modifications responded mainly to the good report. 1 months for desk reject. Write any form of equation and you're skewered! 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. While the paper was rejected the referee reports were in-depth and very helpful. Couldn;t get second referee so editor said he read carefully himself. Referees basically thought contribution was too small to merit publishing. One useful report and the other less so. One of the worst experience I have ever had. 1 good report and 1 not so good. one so-so report and one excellent report, Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics. Reports submitted within one month. Two solid referee reports. 2 referee reports: 1 very detailed recommending revisions; other useless. Editor was great (helpful, insightful, truthful). Fairly helpful referee report. Journal: Utilities Policy (was not included as a journal to chose). These advices do make the paper better. Very good referee reports. Got reject after a year and half of work! Extremely fast. Now Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. Super efficient handling by Prof. Sarte. Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that! The editor is incredible. several days. The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. There was no mistake. Got a form letter in 10 days. Suggested a field journal, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Good comments. Nonder they are going down in ranking in Dev Econ steadily. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; . Quick handling, competent (positive) reports. Ref needed 6 months to produce a paragraph of a response. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. I didn't expect an accept here, but I def did not expect to be rejected on the grounds of such poor review reports. 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). The rejection was fine but took too long for a desk reject. The manuscript improved substantially as well, thanks to the reports. Quick and professional handling by the editor. journal has a reputation for being out of the mainstream of econ. placement@econ.ucla.edu. Waste of the submission fee. Incredibly unprofessional. 2 quick rounds of R&R. Overall, I was very pleased with the process. Reasonable comments from referees. Waiting for R&R results. It too me the editor 13 months to desk reject. Advisors: Robert Seamans (Chair), Gino Cattani, Sinziana Dorobantu, Arun Sundararajan. editor is dumber than a second coat of paint. Referee was constructive and provided helpful comments. After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected. 6 months and no feedback from the journal whtsoever. major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). Decent reports, no complain. Not sure what the editor(s) are doing at this journal but whatever it is, it is not quality overseeing and editing of papers. A true scholar and a gentleman. 16 hour turnaround with nice letter of thoughtful comments suggesting more specialized journal. Took 4 months to report that the article was not a good fit and return without reports. Quite useful to provide further extensions, Fast processing and three excellent referees that helped to substantially improved the paper. Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Putea MatuaWellington - New Zealand, Assistant Director, Economics Overall very fast process. Two straightforward reports calling for revision. One very thorough that discussed on every paper point.Good experience, out of scope for this journal, although the most cited paper in this journal also addresses the same research problem, Bad experience. Three tough rounds which made the paper better. paper rejected after one round of R&R due to extremely negative attitude of the one referee. Desk rejected in two days. First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. Ridiculous experience. Will never submit here. my paper was rejected but great comments on how this paper can be improved are made. After one round of revision, two of the three reviewers accepted the paper and one requested at best minor revision. good reports, great editor who replies promptly to queries. Worse experience ever. Editor handled the paper well. Editor told us to what extent the comment should be addressed. Three reports, two reports are with doable suggestions, one is low-quality. I then spent 2+ months revising, only to be rejected (after another two months), no new reports, but detailed comments from the editor. Waited 6 months for one report, from which it was clear that the referee hadn't even read the paper properly. AE recommended another journal. However, the quality of the report is very high and it helps improve the paper a lot. Editor cites two but only sends one. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. "Although interesting and competently executed, your study does not contain a sufficient theoretical or empirical innovation that would meet the very high standards of the EER." The editor and referee claimed the results were nice but hardly adoptable to other more general problems. they suggested a more spezialized on topic journal. Quite upsetting.
econ job market rumors wiki
- Published in surefire 4 prong wrench