Also one referee was clueless and did not read the paper. Good referee reports. Not enough contribution. Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days. Initially submitted on 2 Aug, we got the rejection six month later. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. I withdrew the paper. it was in 2016. Two helpful reports. Also useful comments from the editor. Fair points raised, although I would have preferred a R&R naturally. One referee openly mentioned s/he doesnt like the method used in the paper. Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. Only have issues with one of the reviewers. 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. 1 reviewer R&R, two reject. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. Frustrating. Quick desk reject after less than 24 hours without comments, annoying given the submission fee. Referees obviously did not read the paper. One guy who had no clue, the other who had good insight into our paper. Unprofessional letters, one full of typo and pushed to a no-way-working direction; the other simply was wrong on his/her main comment. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. Comments were useful and recommended a tier of journal to try next. Very fast rounds with very insightful and reasonable referee reports and suggestions by the editor. Prof. Sushanta Mallick handles the paper. 1.5 weeks overall, Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics. A short piece from an expert in the field. Editor couldn't find referees, rejected and claimed two reports but only one sent. Very fast process but no comment from the Associate Editor. one positive one negative, editor chose to reject. $65 down the drain! Not being up to claimed "high-speed dissemination" standards. Desk reject within a 10 day but editor provided a short 'referee' report mentioning five issues. Both reports were very shorts (one was just a few lines). Not a good experience. Definetely the referees liked the idea and wanted to improve paper's quality not to argue with its contribution. The referee told us to delete the literature review. Great experience. Very bad experience. 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. Ass editor wrote some useful comments. EJM - Econ Job Market Revision accepted for publication in one week. Great letter from Nezih G and two good referee reports. Seems the process is very efficient with the new editorial board, Fantastic experience: fast and very good comments. One report of 10 lines with one minor comment and the other one, longer but with also minor comments. 14 months from submission to publication online. Editor clearly read the paper. One year since submission, no replies to my queries shitty journal. This was back when Bill Evans was editor. econjobrumors.com Top Marketing Channels. Nice experience. Quite good reports and sufficiently fast process. The Editor Requate cannot distinguish between partial and general equilibrium. Update to previous pending post. (Shouldn't these cases be desk-rejected instead of being rejected after 6 months?). Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. good reports. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, excellent experience. Refs gave some okay minor comments but no big, subtantive critiques. Not of broad interest. Editor rejected. Pathetic referee reports. After waiting for 6 months received one crap report which is absolute garbage! In December 2016 we managed to get a reply from the managing editor with the same story, that the decision was a matter of days. two positive reports and one strongly negative report; the editor Andrew Street gave me a R&R; after I spent one month writing a 30-page response, the negative referee still argued against my paper based on his misunderstanding of my paper; the editor finally chose to reject my paper based on the comments of this referee without careful reading. Okay referee reports. Got the rejection after 185 days, referees like to wait until the last couple of days to read papers! 2 years and counting, for a small paper. Desk reject after two weeks. Empirical results didn't match their political priors so recommended rejection. Received two referee reports and a review from the associate editor within two months of initial submission. Reviewers gave substantive comments and significantly improved the paper. At least turnaround time was fast: 14 days. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. !. 2 rejects, 1 R&R. Sent it to EL on Christmas Eve, got the desk reject from Gomez right after Christmas on 26th for not enough contributions. Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. Chat (0) Conferences. The editor suggested to try a more mainstream Public Finance journal (I think may paper could have fit Public Choice but fair enough I will try another Public Finance journal). EconJobRumors.com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is a website for academic economists. Really unprofessional. Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it. Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. reports. Unacceptable waiting time. Unhelpful, rambling. Process a bit slow. It appears they don't like overly technical papers (it's an interdisciplinary journal so depends on who the editor is at the time - if not an economist, then avoid). One very good and one very weak report. The rejection was fair but the referee report uninformative and boilerplate. "not enough contribution". Garbage. Overall very good experience. 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. One report very solid and useful, another (two-paragraph one) looks confusing. A number of emails without reply since then. One of the worst experience I have ever had. Editing is a service and it is not mandatory. I suspect either grad students or people outside of the field. All good, minor additions were suggested. He said he liked my paper and thought it was inventive. The other referee was very positive but the editor followed the negative report. Initial response slow, then extremely quick after R&R. They pointed out several issues of my paper, but they are either wrong or something that can be easily fixed. What is up with Econ Job Rumors? : r/academiceconomics - reddit 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. Editor read the paper and outlined clear and fair reasons for rejection. This is a wiki for tracking searches in various categories for academic (i.e. The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. Good experience overall. The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. Horrible experience. Very clear about what was needed for revision and the 2nd round was only minor comments. Fast editors. One very good report. Very good experience overall. 2 very short reports after waiting 11 months and paying a crazy submission fee. I declined the offer to resubmit. Decent reports highlighting different issues, mostly sympathetic, but tough. Three reports, all of high quality, within 2 months. submission was in 2017. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. I had. No surprising, but referee report was sloppy and incorrect. Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. Very fast reject and they sent my check back. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. Editor said he is sorry for the wait still waiting for the outcome of the second round. There are some great papers in the journal; I would think it would get a higher impact factor. Job Market. Desk rejected within 3 days with idiotic comments, as usual. Emailed every six months never to any response. He/she also asked for the summary statistics of my high frequency data while I already provided the estimates of bid-ask spread, price impact, order flow autocorrelation of each month for the entire contracts which shows his lack of knowledge about market microstructure. I heard rumors they make desk rejections using bots, this one actually looks like it. Fast, but absolutely useless reports. after more than 3 months still "with editor". Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. ", Took two months to desk reject, although initial email assured of a very short response time for desk rejecttions, Desk rejected because of formatting issue but invited to resubmit; took a few days for desk rejectioin. Rejected within a few hours - unclear that associate editor had read the paper carefully, rather than just the limited 100 word abstract, since comments repeated points made within the paper. One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. Rejected but with excellent reports. Extremely slow journal and not well managed journal. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. Anyway, the editor letter mentiones out of scope, and blaims it on our lack of (maybe interest in ?) JFM is bad! Very poor handling by editor. Super fast and clear feedback. Rejected with one referee report in just under a month. Avoid at all costs. 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. took 5 months. Fast review process. Good comments from the editor. Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. Less than insightful comments by an editor clearly hastily read the paper. He requested that we sent him a reminder after a week. Good experience and good editorial team. No reply to my e-mail. Offers and negotiating. 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. The main sugguestion is to come up with a theoretical model and erase half of the work done. Good experience overall, only took 2 weeks, two short reports, one very useful. I submitted two papers and both took a very long time to get referee comments from and the sets of referee comments read like they were written by undergraduate students. Worse experience ever. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. Editor's comments were very useful, like a good referee report. He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. 1 insanely negative liquid poop all over my paper, most of it provably wrong. 1 good report and 2 of low quality probably written by grad students. Some fair comments which are already addressed in the paper but no one paid attention to that Quick and reasonable. One single bad report. I? Editor seemed not to have read the paper. The site, commonly known as econjobrumors.com (its full name is Economics Job Market Rumors), began as a place for economists to exchange gossip about who is hiring and being hired in the . Took 4 months to report that the article was not a good fit and return without reports. Good experiences --- fast (1 month for both the first and R&R round), good reports, editor is also very helpful. Reviewers comments were quite helpful. Second one didn't understand the paper and said it was already written. So despite I got a rejection, the experience is actually not that bad. Helpful editor. Also suggested 3 very good field Journal. My impession was that the editor did not understand the paper the first time (hence no comments the first time) and clearly did not understand the unprofessional behavior of the referees. The journal is a joke! I wish my coauthors would not be too sad being rejected. Ok referee reports. 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) Only one semi-informative report. Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. The closures follow the consequences of the 2020 BLM-Antifa riots that . Desk reject after 2 months! R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. What follows is a summary of what I see as the key advice, with links to other resources that go into more depth or do a better job than I can. Economics Job Market Rumors . Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal. Would submit again. The editor said that enjoyed the paper very much but the contributon is not sufficiently broad for a general interest journal as JHR and fits better into a labour journal. Good report and conditionally accepted with minor revisions. Other, did not read the paper carefully yet rejected. Good comments from the referee. Very disappointing experience with the journal and refereeing process. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. They all got published in other journals and a book. Great judgment. Good referee reports, very nice editor (Thomas Lange), International Journal of Production Economics. Extremly disappointing for a journal which claims to be the number one field journal. The editor (Mallick) gave us some additional advice and was ok with the result. After waiting for 6 months, I sent a polite email to the editor asking if the paper fell through the cracks. The editor emailed me after 6 days and said he read and liked the paper. Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Nice editor message. I am just not part of the club. The most underutilized channel is Paid Search. Not because of the decision but due the letter content. Two weeks desk reject. Less than 24 hours.Rogert J. Barro was the editor. Placement Administrator: Stephanie Burbank 650-725-6198 sburbank@stanford.edu. 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. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. First reviewer excellent. Took 7 months to give 1 referee report with just 5 lines. The referee report was more appropriate for R&R. Long wait though. In 1974, the Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) began printing a periodical, Job Openings for Economists (JOE) (Coles etal. Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. 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. Used reports from AER. Job Market | Department of Economics | Virginia Tech Mentioned that they do not consider theoretical papers. Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal. Extremely poor experience for a journal charging submission fees. One of the referees helped me structure the paper nicely. Decent referee report, acceptance 3 days after submitting revision. Too narrow-minded editor. I felt as if 65$ has evaporated from my pocket. One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor. Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. A very similar paper came out a month after our paper got rejected, new paper's authors are closely tied to this journal. Ref rejected in 3 weeks. Editor (Reis) worked hard on paper to make it better. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. Great experience. Even though the outcome is positive, I blame the editor for not selecting competent enough referees to begin with. Good report. Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud. Reasonably good experience; referee not overly experienced with topic. What a terrible journal. Have they done first-round interviews? Multiple inquiries with a response: "once the reviews are completed, the editor will make a decision". Nice letter. Referee obviously has no clue of what's going on. Although the referee comments were in detail some of them were really out of the scope. low quality and very short referee report Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text. Some unfair comments about replicating what other papers have done (which are already discussed in the paper!) Longish time to first response but good reports and a ref who just loved digging into my equations. Overall a very nice experience. The editor received the report within a month. Good experience. The report is rubbish and incorrect. The other report also helped in improving the paper. Efficient process and fast decision. He further suggested an exercise that was already illustrated in 2 figures, 1 table and described in the text! Overall fair process. Helpful comments from the editor (besides the usual thy shall cite my papers). 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. Long time to first response, given 3 months for a lengthy (single) report, but resubmitted and was accepted in like 3 hours. Referee misread the paper, and hammered us on points that we were not making. 2 months between submission and final decision! Very quick rejection (24 hours), with nice words from the editor, who obviously read the paper. It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Faster than I expected given horror stories i have heard here and elsewhere, and with good comments from refs and editor. Excellent and helpful comments from both referees and the editor. Home. The first response took more than I expected, but the referee's comment was very constructive. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. Fair referee reports, ref. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. Can you get a job? Rejected in 4 days, editor said work was done net resting but not broad enough. Was contacted again after another two years promising that my paper was to be considered, and say yes please do. very good ref reports. The contributions are very thoroughly detailed in the introduction, ie, the referee had to read around 3 pages and took him/her 6 months to do so. Some useful comments from his friend. Comments are not useful at all. Good reports. Good reports. Managing the academic job market - Chris Blattman Editor seemed to have liked the paper despite ref rejection. I feel that mediocre editors are too scared to consider papers unless at least one of the authors is a big shot. I needed to contact the editorial office to know who the editor was, if the paper was sent to referess and etcc, and this after more than a month that the paper was submitted. Will never submit here again. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. Referee seemed have little idea about the field or didn't read my 7 page paper. Overall good experience. Fast and very competent review. AE also helpful. Accepted w/o further revision 18 days after resubmit. Quick response. Shame on you, AE. Economics Job Market Rumors . Transfer from another Elsevier journal. Great experience. Would definitely submit here again. My first ever publication. Desk rejected in two weeks. Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. Francis Breedon is an efficient editor. Good editor. However, it would probably help to read some of Joanna Lahey's work to get a sense of the state-of-art methods with these audit studies." I'll definetly will submit again. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. Really improved the paper. Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject. by Tatonnement Oct 1, 2008 18:58:14 GMT -5: Legend. Overall, bad experience. Reasonable decision. 2 informed reports + very detailed comments and guidance by the AE. Something like that should not leave even an undergrad's desk. Reason for rejection was editor thought paper belonged in `less selective' journal. fast turnaround. Comments based entirely on abstract. Great management by editorial board although disappointing result. Had a paper published there recently. The other reviewer raised some minor issues. one referee suggested revision, one rejection, editor followed the rejection; good reports, suggestions improved the paper, Two revisions but rejected by editor, fast and fair comments, One accept with min comments, one said ok but many points/revisions, one reject, editor said too large a revision without guarantee for accept, 1 report recommended to publish, 1 pointed out minor points. Applied Economics was usually getting back to me in 6 months or even more, this time I had great experience. The literature review was complete! Very happy with the editorial process. Editorial process was efficient and fair. Good experience. highly unprofessional, the report is not useful, comments make little sense and contradict to the extant literature on the topic. Not even a single remotely useful comment. The editor wrote the 2nd report. PhD Candidates in Economics | NBER happy for a quick decision. Bad to useless reports after an unacceptably long response time. Rejected within two weeks. The Editor does appologize on the long delay saying one referee did not provide the report. paper.? I'm over the moon, great experience ! Very fast and fair process, despite the negative outcome. Constructive referee report; said needed more robustness checks, but difficult in word limit. Initial response for R&R was quite fast, but the second response after the resubmission took quite a long time, and it seems that the paper was just sitting at the editor's desk for more than a month before they were assigned back to the referees. Assistant Professor, Macroeconomics. Desk rejected within a week, no fee refunds. Decent reports; AE was a bit difficult, but ultimately helpful, Good reports and constructive feedback from AE; only 1 round of R&R.
Used Moke For Sale Near New Jersey, Colby College Early Decision Acceptance Rate, Past Talksport Presenters, Sasha Farber And Emma Slater, Julia Piaton Et Camille Cottin, Articles E