a:5:{s:8:"template";s:2070:"
{{ keyword }}
";s:4:"text";s:28176:"Neither referee is hostile. Not recommended. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. Would never submit anything to these people again and would never recommend to anyone else either. In only four sentences, ref manages to contradict himself. The most thoughtful and detailed review I've ever had. Russia was born in Kiev. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. Two of three referees did not read the paper. After 4 months it remained Under review and these comments I get from the Reviewer: "You have a good idea. Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. Bad experience. Post an advertisement. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. 3rd review was pending. Joerg Baten seems to be literally an idiot making me wonder how he got picked. Average time between rounds of R&R (months), EJMR | Job Market | Candidates | Conferences | Journals | Night Mode | Privacy | Contact. Reasonable response. Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. Tough but fair ref reports that raise valid questions. Referee reports were quite helpful in refining the paper. Rather pleasant experience. Referees and editor reports were incredibly useful, Shitty ref report. Editor was our de facto 2nd referee. The AE's letter was useful, although no suggestion what to try next. Health economics, Applied . Two reports (half-page each) citing minor issues. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. It was crazy to wait that long for a dek rejectionwas not happy at alland there was not any comments or any reviews at allbasically waited for nothing for 5 months.. 3 weeks for a desk reject. The shitty one referred to multiple papers in very low ranked journals authored by the same set of authors. Good experience! It took the editor 3 months to write two paragraphs and reject. Good experience overall, only took 2 weeks, two short reports, one very useful. Painfully crushing rejection, as all referees agreed it was a good paper, but had some valid concerns about length and possible general interest contribution. however,? The referee report is very good and even show a positive view to my paper. Editor told us to what extent the comment should be addressed. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. Desk rejected after 3 days. Pretty well run, can't complain. No feedback and no useful suggestion in the rejection letter. Will submit again in the future! One referee report was very detailed. Crappy reports. Fast turn around with great referee reports that significantly improved the paper. Board Threads Posts Last Post; Economics Job Market Threads. Editor didn't read the paper, based her decision on reports. Happy with the whole process. Long reports with some good comments. One excellent referee report, one terrible. The Editor mentioned that the paper is outside the scope of the Journal. Useful ref reports and helpful comments from co-editor. Referee one was inexpert in the field, and suggested we cite mostly irrelevant papers published by the handling editor. Economics, Tenured/Tenure-track Advertiser: Various departments, New York University Shanghai Field(s) of specialization: Econometrics - Microeconomics Disappointing outcome, but OK overall experience. Referee didn't buy identification strategy. To be honest, I had a hard time understanding exactly what the point of your paper is. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. Friendly email from editor, interesting reports from referees. Editor provided useful feedback and a subsequent version of the manuscript was sent out for peer review. One referee kept claiming one thing was wrong. Very efficient process, very good comments from both the reviewers and the editor. A short piece from an expert in the field. Very fast. Editor mentioned delay is mainly the result of needing to get a second editorial assessment which suggested this paper's arguments are more likely to find a responsive audience in a different journal. EM suggested transfer to a different journal (which desk rejected after 2 hours). Fast desk reject (Ciccone), after few days. Great feedback from editor, and semi-useful reviews. 1 very useful report and associate editor comments. Quick rejection. Did not receive a rejection letter from the co-editor. Hollifield copy-pasted unsubstantiated claims in rejection letter apparently without even having a look on the paper. After 3 weeks this would have been acceptable. "Growing by the Masses: Revisiting the Link between Firm Size and Market . Reports were pretty good. The editor VanHoose made some good comments though. Avoid Scott Adams. Just that paper did not meet the bar. 23 hours and 30 minutes after submission, desk reject from Shleifer. One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. Desk rejection would be normal, but the journal has changed dramatically the orientation towards family firms. The IJIO has a rapid review process. journal has a reputation for being out of the mainstream of econ. The editor had good words about the paper but one ref didn't like it, so he rejected it. Three months for an "out of scope" decision. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. Desk rejected in the 24 hour window. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied even though I got a fast rejection. extremely slow. Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half. the ?Nash? Very bad reports. Kathryn spier, the editor, was even more clueless and unable to see that we were right and s(he) was wrong. Law School. desk rejected after thee months. Editor clearly read the paper, sent a long email telling me how much he liked it but that it would likely run into trouble with referees. Will never submit here. It is probably not surprising that the editor simply failed to understand the theoretical model and the referees had zero understanding of the empirics. Excellent handling. Submitted 4 February, rejected 29 December with 1 ok referee report that had been submitted in May. One of the best run journals in macro. Referee failed to upload report. 3 months for conference decision and 2 months of journal decision. Desk rejected in 8 days. One almost non-existent referee report (basically two lines just saying the paper is not broad enough), one very detailed and overall positive report. When we chased, we received detailed referee reports and R&R quickly, but were given just 2 weeks to make massive changes to the paper - we withdrew and used comments to publish elsewhere. It would be a positive experience if submission were free. Spent a week rewriting the paper according to requests of the editor ("put figures in the end of the paper" and such), then got a desk reject. More importantly, the analysis is flawed by a number of major shortcomings. 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. Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. 2 strong reports with valid empirical critiques, 1 less so. Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality. Submission refund. Overall, great experience. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. Very quick response. Very fast process. I spent less time and less effort revising 30 pages papers in other similar ranked journals than in EL, Excellent process and editor provided useful comments and guidance, Very pleasant experience very quick and the report professional. Good reports. Economics Job Market. One report after 18 months. Quick responds. Go report in 2 days. Editor rejected the paper, but it was not unexpected. It's been 10 months and still waiting for a first response of a short paper. Very disappointed at the editor who made a decision based on such a low quality report. Great experience. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. 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. . Tough referee was going through three rounds but eventually accepted. Awful experience! I wish my coauthors would not be too sad being rejected. That sounds fair to me. Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions. Didn't make the paper better at all. Two weeks and they not assigned a manuscript ID number. Interesting use of a referee's time. Long time to edit and format after acceptance. Actually took nearly 15 months. Quick response. Just one very low quality report. The referee has read the paper. WBER changes editor and the new editor (Pavcnik) reject the paper. No reply to my e-mail. Both reviews helpful - one very extensive. Two horribly low quality reports. Recommend field journals, Useful letter from the editor Dirk Krueger (aprox. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! Will never submit to this journal again. Nice communication with the Editor, but the referre report was terse with only one and brief idea. Quality suggestions from all three reports & editor. 3 months to R&R; 2 weeks for second round; 1 week for final acceptance. Fast turnover. Less than 24 hours.Rogert J. Barro was the editor. This journal provides a lot of details to track your paper (in total, we got 6 change of status), however, the whole process took almost 6 months but the referee reports were ready in less than 2 months (probably because they get paid since submission is USD250). ref asks more robustness check. A form-letter rejection from Katz. Not general interest enough. This is expected as I am not part of the editor's inner circle. Received acceptance on the same day i resubmitted the paper. Editor rejected after two positive referee reports. The editor rejected based on flimsy reasons. Formulaic letter. I felt as if 65$ has evaporated from my pocket. The paper was a very good fit though. 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. The referees gave great feedback to improve the paper. Some fair some unwarranted comments. Monica Singhal handled the submission within a bit less than 2 months, and takes time to give a detailed opinion on the paper, impresive! Much improved paper. Actually, it was overall positive. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. A bit slow for a 2000 words paper. Handled by an editor who is not in the same field. One month for the desk reject. one referee report was in after three months, AE waited 9 months before making a recommendation. Copied and pasted the comments, some of which were not even relevant for the current version of the the paper. Editor accepted the paper after we made some modifications recommended by the referee. Reasonable. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. And I've recently reviewed a closely related paper for the EER that got a revise-and-resubmit, so you'd think the topic must be interesting enough. One good quality report suggesting minor revisions after 1 month. Reasonable decision. Avoid at all costs, International Review of Economics and Finance. Editor (Voth) was polite but did not say much. Referee misread the paper, and hammered us on points that we were not making. One very helpful referee report, 2 not so helpful. Super efficient handling by Prof. Sarte. Editor is very efficient and professional. One useful report, the other poor. 14 days to desk reject, worthless generic email that said nothing on why it was rejected, merely that they "get lots of papers. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. Long wait, decision was communicated with a delay of 3 months after reports had been received. Too narrow-minded editor. It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. 20 months for this type of journal is super long. I had much better experience in American Journal of Health Economics. Not surprised to hear that the impact of the journal is going down. But the editor (Kunst) decided to "follow the referee's advice to reject your submission", even though there was no indication of such a recommendation in the RR. It is run by "Kirk", [1] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. placement@econ.ucla.edu. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. The editor rejected it though. The other one was less so. One guy who had no clue, the other who had good insight into our paper. Two decent referee reports. Fast. Very helpful referee report. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. Editor is a insecure joke. The other review was somewhat on point in its criticism, though I can'r give him/her the credit as the shortcoming was itself mentioned in the paper. Editor provided some friendly comments. Write any form of equation and you're skewered! After 7 months at the journal, I get one extremely low quality referee report. I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. 2022 Job Market Candidates . Overall, not bad experience. Very good experience overall. Rejected. Editor desk rejected after a couple of days due to lack of fit. Editor didn't waste any time on accepting after first revision. Advisor: Prof. Caterina Calsamiglia. Suggested to submit to a good journal. reports. (Fair?) 2 months between submission and final decision! NEVER submit there if you are pre-tenured. recommend ?that? Very efficient indeed!!!!!!! The whole process took about a little bit more than a year, which is very good. Good experience, Revision accepted by editor within two days after re-submission. Our paper is rejected after receiving one referee report. had to withdraw, Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. Very clear that two of the three referees hadn't read the paper. No feedback at all. Accepted once I satisfied the referees. Editor read/scanned desk rejected paper. One report was very useful. Desk reject in 1 week. Very quick response. One referee does not follow simple math, immediately assumes the model is wrong and the editor takes his side. That is, the handling of the submission took almost 4 months, I think this is unacceptable: what is the point to have quick referee reports if the editorial team takes such a long time? Nice when they actually read the paper. Although QJE may be one of the oldest professional journal of economics published in the English language, it is also stale. by Tatonnement Oct 1, 2008 18:58:14 GMT -5: Legend. Three weeks for a desk reject. Although my article had Nikkei 225 index in it they rejected it anyway! 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. Desk reject in 4 hours. Bad experience. Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. fair decision, Super quick desk rejection because paper uses archive data but isn't really econ hist, 6 months plus to first decision - then substantial time between R&R rounds, with pednatic comments which mostly wanted to remove the economics from the paper to the appendix. No response for seven and a half months. Excellent experience, the editor was clear on what is required after first round RR. Soon it became like a bar that doesn't kick out any assholes and now its a collection of assholes who happen to do economics. About 10 weeks from submission to referee reject. Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. My first ever publication. Referee didn't think the contribution is significant enough, so straight reject. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. Fast desk reject (~2 weeks) with a couple of brief, helpful comments from the editor. At least response in 1.5 month. The review process yielded good referee reports in round 1. Accepted version was greatly improved. Available November 2022 for positions in Summer/Fall 2023. Quick desk reject with a few comments from the editor. One report of 10 lines with one minor comment and the other one, longer but with also minor comments. Good experience. 1 really excellent, positive report. 3rd round 1 month and then accepted. One reviewer asking for minor revisions, the other clearly reject the paper. Fast but shallow. Tough revisions, but very fair. 1 suggested r&r other reject, AE decided to reject--fair decision. I received an answer of the editor after 2 months. Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California (USA) Overall good experience. New editor apologized for the delay and handled the rejection quickly. That mean 5 people read my paper? Editor agreed. it was in 2016. In the opinion of the Editorial Board, this paper does not appear to be a good match (the othee papers are good match) for the International Journal of Industrial Organization and it is unlikely that this paper will ultimately be published in the IJIO. 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. Revise and Resubmit. Quick and professional handling by the editor. I believe that if that is the reason it could have been desk rejected. Detailed reports, 2 negative, 1 positive; nice letter from co-editor. Suggested field journal. A serious fraud: Fake JF and RFS conditional acceptances, "Leftover women" problem hits US dating market, New "Family Ruptures" AER / NBER is rip-off of obscure paper, Schiraldi (LSE) and Seiler (Stanford) false coauthors of AER publication, 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). 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. Easiest publication of my life! Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. One very good referee report, one useless one. One of those cases where the paper though rejected improved significantly as a result. Waste of time. Just thoroughly unprofessional report. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. Rejected within one day. My fault for not discussing that up front. Took a long time for first response which suggested feasible changes and asked for a revised submission. Resubmitted within the same day. interesting and polite reports. Each report was less than 600 words long with 3-4 main comments but not in much dept (not even full references included). not worth the time and effort. There is no option to choose 'Referees Accepted' but 'Editor Rejected'. Rejected for arbitrary reasons. Other referee reports are okay, not very useful. Editor then said with a quick/thorough response and no need to go back to refs. Not a good fit! Good report. So not sure why the editor would say this is "fixable", unless he is trying to say it sucks in a nice way. Editor gives no justification whatsoever. Nothing in the email suggested that anyone had actually read the paper. Deputy Editor rejected the paper with insufficient contribution and a comment that doesn't make sense. I am not in a club, whatever it is.). 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". Poor quality reports. I got two very different referee reports, one was very critical but absolutely low quality. The paper is a solid analysis but does not sufficiently add to our understanding. Basically max 3-month turnaround from their side at any stage. Editor rejected after R&R without providing any referee report (note: journal name has now changed to International Journal of Health Economics and Management, International Journal of Industrial Organization. rejected after 5 months of 'reviews completed'. Desk rejected in two hours with a polite email that basically said "your methodology is wrong and your question is wrong." While harping on the issue, provided no insights as to how one can go about it. I love this journal. Tough, but fair referees. Placement Director - Alessandro Pavan Email: alepavan@northwestern.edu. Now Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. 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). Fair decision, referee reports pointed out major flaw but hardly in a way that could be called constructive. 3 reports: 2 of them really good, one mediocre. Two referee reports. Split decision. He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. You have to earn it! I expected better from this journal. As a theoretical contribution, it is not sufficient for Economics Letters. I sent off the revision less than 24 hours after the R&R. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Close callEditor gave the benefit-of-a-doubt and requested revisions, one good referee, the other not very good, helpful editor, overall, pretty smooth process (always easier to say when the paper ends up being published). Not a fit to the journal! (310) 206-1413. Although paper is accepted, i would hardly deal with them in the future. The initial resposen took too long (almost 4 moth to be sent our to referees). Desk rejected in 25 minutes. After revision, paper accepted in a week. The closures follow the consequences of the 2020 BLM-Antifa riots that . Two weeks to desk reject. A lot to revise, but editor gave only 2 months. Mostly decent reports raising fair points, OK experience. Hastily written by PhD student. Desk reject two days after I submitted the manuscript. Oh well. within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Good communication and seemed very efficient. Editor accepted it. The editor also read the paper and gave very good comments and suggestions. Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING. Particularly, one of the referees seemed like he didn't read a single word past the intro. smooth in general. The editor likes the idea, but things the method is not new, so recommended to a field journal. Two reports that are quite detailed. Positive feedback from the editor. Paper went multiple rounds over 2 years. It is not very clear why it got rejected at the end (I guess referees recommended rejection but thsi was not stated in their reports so it coudl have been the editor who thought it was difficut to get published given the work needed). Very quick desk reject. The AE also provided his own review. Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. Second round 4 months before acceptance. Terribly disappointing experience. It is a pity it was rejected, but I appreciate the quick response. This paper has just been accepted in a top transportation journal now. Rejection based on fit. Decision was made in 45 days. Editor gave me chance to convince other referee. Only had to face one reviewer in the second round. AEA-Committee on the Job Market; Cawley, John, A Guide and Advice for Economists on the U. S. Junior Academic Job Market, 2018-19 edition Johannes Pfiefer maintains a catalog of job market tip pages and resources Resources for applying to government positions - L&S Career Site for Govt, Policy, International Affairs, writing a . Even disappointing outcome, three constructive reports, one of them extremely helpful. Readers familiar with the operation of the market can proceeddirectlytothe"data"subsectionbelow. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). After waiting for 9 months, I sent an email to the editor asking about the paper status. Pretty useless referee reports. Excellent reports. Referee comments show that it could be an RR but the editor rejected. One paragraph with comments. 1 report, minor issues, rejected. the comment above was for another journals. 2 referees were positive throughout the process, one was an outright acceptance. Rejection without arguments/referee report. Long process but well worth it! Rejected after revision, very good comments in initial round. Good turnaround time. Horrible experience. But no referee reports were supplied to me. My worst experience ever. Way too slow though. Overall an excellent experience. EconJobRumors.com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is a website for academic economists. Overall, very good experience. Very slow. Very quick. Thorough review. Research Interests : Digital Platforms & Society, Regulatory Uncertainty on Digital Platforms. Very good experience. Probably the editor took a look at my zip code, and told the AE that "this should be quick". 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. Both referees were a bit too negative, but the reports were useful. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. AVOID it. Excellent and clear communication with editors. Quite upsetting. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. Desk rejected in two days. The other without serious suggestions. Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. The editor informed that she is a cross section econometrician and she did not understand our panel data paper. I will never submit to this journal. Contribution not general enough suggests Review of Economics and Statistics. Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. Very impressed with comments received by the co-editor (Mark Armstrong), which were more substantive than the reviewers. I am currently studying the interaction between technological and demographic changes and the labor market. Great comments from the referees and editor. Submission fee refund. Desk reject within 5 days. Form letter. And once that was done, he wanted us to rewrite the article. One Referee wrote nonsense, the other was good, the editor added nonsense. Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. Great experience. editor very helpful. Disappointing referee: a few useful comments, but mostly low-grade and somewhat hostile. One detailed report. Got accepted after 2nd round. His own comments were not based on the reports. Difficulties to reach the editor, but useful report and very fast decision (1 day) after submitted the revised manuscript. ";s:7:"keyword";s:27:"econ job market rumors wiki";s:5:"links";s:433:"Lincoln County Nebraska County Attorney,
Boykin Spaniel Puppies For Sale Sc,
Eastgate Funeral Home Bismarck,
Articles E
";s:7:"expired";i:-1;}