Would submit again. Much faster than last experience with the journal, same result. Suggested a general interest journal. Two referee reports, each was half a page with very general comments about the lack of contribution to a general readership. Placement Officers: Pete Klenow 650-725-2620 klenow@stanford.edu. 1 great, 1 so so, 1 absolutely trash (the referee only argued on the reliability of the benchmark case, which is a well established result in the literature!!!). My impression is that the editor didn't even bother looking at the paper. The editor Mark Taylor accepted the paper after one day of the last re-submission. Very inefficient handling process. An extremely meager, short, embarassing, useless report. Not really a complaint though as there is no submission fee and the process was timely. Editor Prof. David Peel is a very nice guy. one nasty and rudely written report with inaccuracies as well, one cited lack of fit. 3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal. Graduate Advisors. Appreciate fast review and efficient process. Would definitely recommend it even if it's a longshot. I will never submit to this journal. Will submit again.. Very quick rejection, but I received a nice response from one of the co-editors. but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. Overall- great experience. Ref #1 created new issues after I addressed his first round. After more data were collected, the editor said "a referee suggested empirical work was not serious enough." Good referee reports about key aspects of the research question framing and relevance. He said he liked my paper and thought it was inventive. Finance Job Rumors (489,474) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,762) Micro Job Rumors (15,233) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,523) Industry Rumors (40,348) The first response took more than I expected, but the referee's comment was very constructive. Good experience. Needless to say, the error is not as such, Bad reports (full of mistakes, pointed out to AE but didn't work), Assigned to an associate editor and got desk reject. Desk reject after 27 days by Kurt Mitman. Referee makes a factually inaccurate claim about previous research, and misinterprets interaction terms. Horrible. They like the paper but the contribution not enough for Econometrica. Editor suggested JIE. Something like that should not leave even an undergrad's desk. Editor claimed an expert in the field reviewed the paper while the referee admitted in his first sentence of the report that he is not. Turn down without a single line of comment in both rounds. He is the main contact person for employers who have questions about a candidate's vita . Editor provided quick and fair comments why the paper is not suitable for the journal. useless reports. ref asks more robustness check. 1 report suggesting to cite the Editor's work and speaking about things outside of the scope of the paper. One excellent report, one mediocre report. Good referee reports. Editor wrote report himself. Good reports, but what a punch in the gut. After revise and resubmit, was rejected, Next year, similar article appeared in the journal authored by one of the associate editors. I felt as if 65$ has evaporated from my pocket. Garbage journal, not a real journal, avoid. In doubt, Spier decided to reject the paper. other outlets are suggested. Largely fair points. The referee did not read the first sentence of the paper and was not familiar with the literature. Chat (0) Conferences. The other clearly did not understand what is going on and wrote some junk. Efficient process and fast decision. Only had to face one reviewer in the second round. Desk reject after 1 week. Good experience overall. I dont care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. Good strong editors. I contacted the journal about that but no response. The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. Followed up on them, sent it to another journal, and got accepted very quickly. 4 weeks for desk rejection is too much. Five weeks "with editor" to a boilerplate desk reject, then they asked me to applaud them for a "speedy decision.". No feedback and no useful suggestion in the rejection letter. Desk Reject in one week for lack of contribution. Great experience overall, Editor decided not to wait for the late referee not to slow down the process. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. Extremely bad experience with this journal. Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. Not signed by any specific editor, so not even sure who handled the manuscript. Finance Job Rumors (489,486) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,772) Micro Job Rumors (15,235) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,012) China Job Market (103,527) Industry Rumors (40,348) Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. There was no mistake. Associate editor rejected on poor grounds. Helpful comments from referees and editor. I have no problem receiving a desk-reject, but the stated reasons show no understanding of our research. Editor sat for two months on completed referee report and rejected without adding any comments. ", 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. Did get a field journal suggestion and a refund of submission fees. Insightful and constructive comments. 20 Feb 2023. Bad experience waiting for and ultimately receiving two relatively useless reviews for a comment/note (paper < 10 pages including title/abstract page, references, and tables). Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. Strange desk reject by editor, claiming methods weren't relevant to policy. Editor and editorial staff excellent. She said only 1 (very short but with no objections) of 3 of the referees responded and was not able to find new referees. It took a long time to hear back from the first round. Recommended field journals. 1 month for R&R, 1 week for acceptance after revision submitted. Editorial board apparently liked the paper, but found it not sufficiently related to population economics. National Bureau of Economic Research. One useful report out of three. Extremely fast and helpful. Just didn't seem to believe paper, but without any really good reason. Do not submit to this journal. Some of the people at my lower One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. not the fastest experience, but high quality comments from referees and the editor who liked the paper. reports show referees were serious. Editor (Partridge) was very helpful and was de facto a 4th referee. Happy with process. Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow. Great experience. Desk rejection came in 10 days. Long and slow desk reject. Meaningless reviews. Poorly managed journal. Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. Liran Einav 650-723-3704 leinav@stanford.edu. Way too slow though. Can't complain with the decision and the entire process. Nothing more frustrating than paying to submit a paper that was desk rejected after 2 months with no reason given for rejection "I find the overall contribution too small to justify publication in AEJ". Very good experience all around. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied even though I got a fast rejection. No complains. Would submit here again now that I know what to expect. Desk rejected the same day! The contribution of the paper is not enough for EL! At least the fee is refunded. Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports. Quick -- 3 days after editor was assigned. Paper was accepted two days later. 2022 Job Market Candidates - Department of Economics Very fast process. As a theoretical contribution, it is not sufficient for Economics Letters. Two years for such outcome. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. only one report (quite helpful). The editor rejects the paper and I think it is fair, but I do see that the paper can be improved based on these reports. Editor rejected. One magnificient + one so-so ref report. Still took 3 months. Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. I only regret not withdrawing this. Very fast process. However comments from the negative one are the most detailled and helpful. Very helpful reports. Took a long time for first response which suggested feasible changes and asked for a revised submission. Asim I. Khwaja editor, Two out of three referee reports were good one was much less. Comments weren't helpful, but at least they didn't waste my time. Not to say, the shortcoming is an accepted norm till one finds a better way. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. No reply yet. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. Bad experience overall. Super fast and clear feedback. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. Editor is very efficient and professional. Bugaga! While the goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. Recommend. I suspect whether Penny Goldberg is competent. Overall I feel paper rejected because of third negative review. Katz was encouraging. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. But I'm not in any club and not at an elite school (by choice). Editor was our de facto 2nd referee. ", Fact: the SAT and GRE are just thinly veiled IQ tests. Editor agreed to R&R and suggested major changes but then didn't like the resulting paper. A bit slow for a 2000 words paper. It is run by "Kirk", [2] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. Despite the rejection, referees raised valid points that we can adress to improve our paper and provided a way forward. Very good experience. 2 weeks for a desk rejection, editor actually read the paper and commented on it before deciding it is more suited to a field journal. Fair process and good report. I do nto think my paper was taken very seriously. Keep asking to submit to other conferences/journals RCFS/RAPS. Process was too long given that only minor changes were required on R&R. Not clear if the paper was even read. 1 reviewer R&R, two reject. Helpful for resubmission somewhere else. It seems that the last guy didn't read the paper carefully and I wonder how it could take 4month to write such a poor report. 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. Editor identity unknown. Good referee report + some comments from AE. Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. It has been about 16 months now. Why do Americans obsess over Japan work hours and suicide rates? Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. Good comments, made the paper better. Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. The paper was accepted after one round of submission. The editor does not respond to emails. Kind words by editor, though weird reasoning, nearly a month for an anonymous desk rejection. Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. This journal is a scam! My previous rejection there was north of 6 months One very low quality report, one very thorough report. submitted half a year ago. Three short reports. 2 positive. Desk rejection within two weeks. Theory in one field sent to AE in another field doing empirics. Saying that the topic is not general enough. No input from editor either. Great management by editorial board although disappointing result. Doesn't seem it was read beyond the title. I then spent 2+ months revising, only to be rejected (after another two months), no new reports, but detailed comments from the editor. UghhhI will probably withdraw the submission, It is the worst experience I have ever had with a journal. Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. Paper not anywhere close to editor's field of interest. plus for a quick turnaround. Desk/ref rejected. Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal. The editor had good words about the paper but one ref didn't like it, so he rejected it. Editor sat on completed reports for 3 months before making a decision. Editor Chandra took four months to desk reject a straightforward empirical paper. Will never submit again to ER. PhD & Postdoctoral Research Fellow Job Market Candidates 2022 - 2023 Home Page CV ANDREW HANNON PHD Research Fields: Macroeconomics, Household Finance, Sovereign Debt, Financial Stability and the Housing Market Job Market Paper: Falling Behind: Delinquency and Foreclosure in a Housing Crisis References: Dr. . But editor is very good, One referee report with no constructive comments. Therefore, we have decided not to review the paper. Other two reports are fine, although one other also did not read a section, s/he says. Very helpful referee report. Would not bother again. Economics Journal Submission Wiki | Economics Job Market Rumors The editor's letter was well-written. 2 week turnaround. Welcome to the Academic Jobs Wiki. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. Would definitely submit here again. Overall good experience. Desk rejected within 7 days. fast response but low quality referee reports, fast and reliable journal. After 6 months I got three good reports. It than took the editor (Mark Watson) another 6 months to read reports and make a decision. A bit of wait but ok for econ standards. Two reports, both harsh and recommended reject. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. Submission fee refund. Massive waste of time and money. Editor was really nice. Good reports - detailed and constructive. Just stay away! (It doesn't seem like a club journal. Desk rejected the next day. Stay away! Referees mostly wanted me to provide more background and a deeper policy discussion. This? After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement. Three mediocre reports. Also gave a lengthy extension. Editor suggested field journal. Complete garbage. Editor makes no attempt to reconcile conflicting reports or, One good referee report. superficial comment. 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). Paper was poorly read by the referees. Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. One referee clearly did not read the paper, while the other one did not understand the meaning of control variables. Easy/doable revisions were asked. No comments from the editor though. 150$ is quite a lot of money. Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. Editor response, not a fit to the journal, too theory! Quick handling, competent (positive) reports. But it does move my prior of affiliation doesnt matter, just the paper (yes, a prior that no one here seems to have). Almost 4 weeks for desk rejection. Desk reject within 1 day. Submitted the paper 11:45. Extremely constructive and useful comments, clearly from people from diverse backgrounds who engaged deeply with the paper (2 economists, 1 polsci). Desk reject after 2 months. Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations, two reports, comments not always very clear on what was wanted but still helpful. Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. Slow. One referee with very helpful reports. Horrible experience. very professional; some referees had good points; should have spent more time polishing the paper before submitting. Overall, not bad experience. very good comments. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. awful reportreferee asked "why is this a problem?". Awfully slow. Job Market Candidates 2022 - New York University I am a macroeconomist specialized in economic growth and macro labor. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. It was almost like somebody pickpocketed and got my $600, had to pay $100 instead of the usual submission fee. Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. Avoid if possible. Comments very helpful, editors took time to read the paper and were engaged throughout the process. I am happy with the outcome. No response to requests. I pulled the paper and send it elsewhere. Editor agreed = reject. Basically useless, a waste of time. A bit slow, but good comments by the referee. I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. Editor reject due to relevance. Editor was Barro. 2 detailed comments from referees. Would submit here again. Not too bad an experience. had to withdraw, Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. Our claims were supported. Referee reports were very brief and contained little in the way of substantive comments. Fast and kind desk rejection. decent referee reports, overall good experience. Found out it was rejected only by contacting them. Reasonable response. Referee comments show that it could be an RR but the editor rejected. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. This Rumors site allows only a maximum of 12 months from submission to decision. The reviewers "firmly" recommend rejection but I see that most problems can be fixed. Long wait for such an outcome, 3 reports and Editor provides some good suggestions within 10 weeks. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. Editor provided detailed advice throughout the entire revision process. In anyway, you need to be very careful when responding with him, he can easily upset you with a rejection. Rejected within 24hrs by Katz. Also very fast. however,? One very good report, 6 pages long. Great experience. Very quick response. Bad experience, there was a long wait of mroe than 10 months to get 2 referee reports that did not like the the paper (but not so sure why). Both referees recommended revise and resubmit but the editor came up with a nonsensical reason to reject the paper. 1 very helpful report. Econ Job Market Rumors Accounting | Now Hiring May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. Good experience in general, the editor recommended a field journal. Reviewers gave substantive comments and significantly improved the paper. Submission for a special issue. Got the refund soon after request. What can i say more? Also the editor gave us good comments. From the comments it could have been an R&R, at least the referee and editor comments were helpful and will help to improve the paper, Though it is rejcted, I want to express my thankness to the refreee, who provdes a exremly high quality report. Overall decent and professional expert reports. 2.5 are very positive. 2 weeks. No reason given. Not sure I'd call it a full referee report, however, and only receiving one report is strange. The report that was on fence did not understand some of the points made in the paper, as his biggest concern was addressed in the introduction itself. You received a high fee, you explain at least one sentence about your decision making. Comments were useful and recommended a tier of journal to try next. Surprised at how quickly all went. Professional editor. Desk reject in two weeks. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. A very detailed and fair review of our research, providing a balanced judgement of our achievements.
Another Word For Clear Understanding,
Whistle Stop Restaurant,
Big Farm: Mobile Harvest Keys,
Ashlyn 72" Ladder Bookcase,
Gabi Voice Actor Death Threats,
Articles E
