Really good advice from journal editor and 2 good reports. Overall a good experience! Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. Excellent referees too, no nitpicking, focused on contribution. Finance Job Rumors (489,527) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,815) Micro Job Rumors (15,246) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,029) China Job Market (103,535) Industry Rumors (40,351) JFM is bad! One very good referee report that helps improve the quality of the paper. Paper eventually got accepted at higher ranked journal (!). Reports detailed and helpful. But no referee reports were supplied to me. The literature review was complete! some useful comments, but clear that the referee didn't spend a lot of time on the paper, nor take much effort to follow bits of it that weren't conventional. Submitted in 2012. I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. Worst experience ever nearly one year just to hear "not much new, therefore reject" 100 bucks for nothing. Glad that they didn't waste my time. 2 months with almost no answer, although the journal claims desk rejections are within days. very thorough referee report, comments were mostly related to theoretical motivation, paper was submitted without much change to JFE and eventually accepted there. Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. Recommend. On its face, the referee provided a good report, but once I dug into the details, it was clear he didn't understand my identification strategy. very disappointing. reports: 1 ridiculous, 1 useless, 1 useful, 6 months from initial submission to acceptance. Two referee reports and one report from the associate editor. Very helpful referee reports. Editor was polite. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. Editor referred to a report by a reviewer received by phone. Editor rejected the paper based on the decision of board of editor. Editor says "..his delay is mainly the result of needing to get a second editorial assessment which suggested this paper's arguments are less likely to find a responsive audience in our journal's readership". great experience. Very pleased. Sometimes Batten took a long time to make a decision after the reviews were completed, but he was fair. professional. The other report was *atrocious*. Great experience! Brief comments from the editor. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. Very professional handling of the editor with very detailed comments and helpful reports. Desk reject after 3 days. Was desk rejected in one day. Didn't let it go, Editor told him to "#"# off and published the paper anyway. comments were not very insoghtful, but decision & process overall fair. Disappointed with the result, but the experience was okay. Ridiculous. apologize.? Overall, I was disappointed not by the outcome per se, which is part of the game, but by the poor judgment of the referee. 7 days for desk reject. After submitting revisions, 1 month until final decision to accept with no other edits. After one round of revision, two of the three reviewers accepted the paper and one requested at best minor revision. OK report. The editor suggested an alternative outlet, which was where the paper eventually got published. Two useful reports and one garbage report thrashing the paper. 11 months for a rejection. Job Market Paper: Local Polynomial Estimation of Time-Varying Parameters in GMM. Gorodnichenko was nice. 9 days. a positive experience, all in all. Perhaps the worst experience ever. Should be careful to submit. Had to withdraw after waiting for nearly a year and a half. Fast and serious journal. solution? After 10 months waiting, I had a revise and resubmit decision. Pointed out the problems in the model and also admitted that its difficult to take care of all those problems. Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. Will never submit to this journal again. 1 month + 10 days for desk rejection. Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff. Placement Officers: Pete Klenow 650-725-2620 klenow@stanford.edu. Editor was changed, asked for electronic resubmission and paper got rejected. Sum up: Fast but not cool, Editor. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. Very good reports and editor was clear about what were most important points to improve in the revision. Would submit again. 2 days to get a desk rejection. You can even not see these wordings in Game of Thrones. Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. Galor and the referees felt the contribution wasn't substantial enough. desk rejected. Seems to be unfit the reviewing editor's preference but the handling editor was kind though. Unhelpful, rambling. One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. One review was good, and helped to improve the paper, the other one (recommended rejection) was raising many peripheral issues. In only four sentences, ref manages to contradict himself. Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. After revision, paper accepted in a week. Excellent handling. Rejected at ECMA, told a great fit at ReSTAT, desk rejected with generic letter after two days (and I'm in the club), 2.5 months for a desk reject with no feedback (labor paper). We did. Bazinga! I don't necessarily disagree with the editor's assessment, but was surprised at the low-quality of the referee report. I guess I had the luck of being assigned to two business school types with absolutely no idea of the literature that my model belonged to. An uprising journal so I recommend people to publish here. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. I wish them luck. 1 helpful report. Suggested to submit to a good journal. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. Useful ref reports and helpful comments from co-editor. Very bad experience. The AE was gentle and actually read my paper. Online in 2 months. Editor acknowledge that it was a bad draw. Good referee report and very efficient editor. After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. There are some great papers in the journal; I would think it would get a higher impact factor. Received 2 very nice and 1 okay-ish report. Fair experience. Hard to believe. plus for a quick turnaround. Ok referee reports. my ?defense,? I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Revision accepted for publication in one week. The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it. Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it. Ref reports were okay. Good experience, even my paper was rejected. Rejected after revision, very good comments in initial round. Fast desk reject on subjective grounds. Very good experience. Particularly, one of the referees seemed like he didn't read a single word past the intro. Suggested AEJ:AE, RESTAT and top field. A disappointment. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. Good reports. Editor gives no justification whatsoever. 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. R&R only takes one week. Very helpful comment. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda. Editor wrote a few short comments. Editor didn't waste any time on accepting after first revision. One referee had clearly read the paper. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. 2 decent reports. Very bad experience. Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. The other referee was concerned about the limitations of the identification strategy, but the same strategy has been used in other studies (some are in top field journals). Good comments from referee and editor after five months. Useless comments. $100 fee refunded. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. The three reviewers really went through the proof, I was a little impressed by their comments. Extremely efficient process with good comments by referees. Conley is a tremendous editor. The referee completely misunderstood a *very* basic primary school model and then went on to criticize and complain about the empirical results. It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. Submitting to JME first was really worth it. Will submit again in the future! 7 months for 1 decent report and 1 poor report. Second referee made some useful suggestions. Rejected for arbitrary reasons. One referee kept claiming one thing was wrong. Editor sent it to peer review in one day. 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. He suggested a general interest journal. Is "have u told ur mother" am automated script, or truly deranged person? 12 months and waiting. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). No reply yet. Editor response, not a fit to the journal, too theory! Can't really complain about the speed, North American Journal of Economics and Finance. Editor was fair, his decision was understandble, but 6 months is clearly too long. Very good comments even if he slightly misunderstood the contribution. Editor recommended to submit to other journals. Zero constructive comments! Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. Referees did not understand the contribution of the paper. Obviously an inevitably subjective decision, but given this, the handling was very fair. This journal is a joke. Would definitely submit here again. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, excellent experience. Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. Very nice words from the editor but useless referee reports. The most thoughtful and detailed review I've ever had. Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. A form-letter rejection from Katz. Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING. Editor read the paper and outlined clear (and fair) reasons for rejection. Not of broad interest. The referee was clearly trying to protect his own paper on a related topic; half of the bullet points referred to that paper. Time to accept less than 1 year. Some nice words from the editor. Fast, but absolutely useless reports. Excellent desk reject by Larry S. Recommended a field journal by the editor. Lots of puffed up explanation marks and faux outrage. 2 years and counting, for a small paper. Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. The paper was not a good fit for the journal and another journal was recommended. Had a paper published there recently. After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. Otherwise, great experience. very thorough with helpful suggestions for revision. Very low process. quick turnaround and helpful referee report. Woman completes quintessentially English mission to eat 244 scones across U.K. The editor read the paper and provided useful advice on how to improve it. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. 3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal. Editor Chandra rejected with one ref report. Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. The referee also pretended that I did not develop a two-sided hypothesis (comment like "why didn't the author think of this? Long wait but not a bad experience overall, referee comments were useful. Nice when they actually read the paper. Very clear referee report with constructive comments. Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. After 7 months at the journal, I get one extremely low quality referee report. The dynamic is well known and its implications are rather straightforward in this context. One excellent and positive report. Will never submit again. Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small). Horrible experience. Overall, great experience despite the negative outcome, The WORST experience of my rather long life. The negative one is essentially saying "it's not game theory so I don't care." "Paper not of general interest, try sending to a field journal". Result not general enough for ECMA. 1 day desk rejection by editor. Worst referee report ever. The editor talked about 4 ref reports. Chiara Paz and Alice Wang. Long time to edit and format after acceptance. Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject. Ref needed 6 months to produce a paragraph of a response. Easiest publication of my life! Not general interest enough. Worst experience with a paper submission ever. The editor emailed me after 6 days and said he read and liked the paper. So do keep an eye on the paper and cotnact the editor if necessary. Turn down without a single line of comment in both rounds. They like the paper but the contribution not enough for Econometrica. The submission and revision process was great and timely. Very efficient. main message was that paper is a poor fit. Said the paper was to mathematical/econometrical for the journal. Terrible screening process at this journal. Bad experience. 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. Desk reject after 2 months. Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. Very slow. Several rounds of mildly encouraging R&R reports, then paper was lost. Smooth experience, although a bit slow in getting to the paper (quick when they actually did). Some people are simply too narrow in the scope of their research to be editors of a journal which claims to be of "general interest". desk reject by kahn in 48 hours. Pretty average speed compared to other journals. The paper got rejected anyways. Helpful reports, overall good experience. Applying for academic jobs. Fast turnaround, I'm very happy with the experience. 6 months to desk reject with little reason. Education, Labor, Gender, Development and Public Policies. They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. so,? One detailed report. desk rejected in 3 days. Fast decision after resubmit. Rejected, but editor and referees were fair. Job Market Candidates. 6 months for a referee report written by a plain imbecile who could not even derive Proposition 1. waiting 19 months as of today, sent 3 reminfers, Hall nor anybody else from the journal havent responded so far to any of my emails. Great experience. Massive waste of time and money. 0/10 would recommend. Rejected with only 1 referee reports and after waiting 10 months! I do not think that the referee understood my paper. Will not submit here again. Editor was really nice. No flyouts yet. Desk rejected within two weeks. We may have been aiming too high. Finance Job Rumors (489,527) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,815) Micro Job Rumors (15,246) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,029) China Job Market (103,535) Industry Rumors (40,351) Not big enough contribution. Very complementary and helpful reviews. Massive work. However, the quality of the report is very high and it helps improve the paper a lot. one nasty and rudely written report with inaccuracies as well, one cited lack of fit. Overall efficient process. The main sugguestion is to come up with a theoretical model and erase half of the work done. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). Very happy with the editorial process. My first ever publication. Efficient. At least turnaround time was fast: 14 days. They did not send an offer last year either. Taburet (LSE), Leombroni (Stanford), Puglisi (Northwestern), Wangner (TSE), Qiu (Pennsylvania), Morazzoni (UPF), Charles (USC), Hurtado (Chicago Booth), Nord (EUI), van der Beck (Lausanne), Monteiro (Northwestern), Gutierrez (Chicago), Senior Economist (Forecasting and Policy Modelling). Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. Argued lack of fit, dispite publishing a paper on the subject a few months ago, one very short useless report in seven months, 5 months + 125USD for a referee rejection with a report of about 21 lines.SHAME. One referee report was super helpful. There was supposed to be a third referee report that was not received, which may have been the reason for the time between submission to decision. Fast desk reject, no substantial comments. editor very helpful. After two interventions got 1 ridiculous report. The referee seems like a first year PhD student who struggled with the notion of left tails. After resubmission, I was informed that the paper would be sent to another editor (Prof. Mallick). Apply for Market Access Asia region manager job with HPE in Taipei, Taipei City, 11568. happy for a quick decision. 2 weeks to generic desk reject with no comments whatsoever. My paper was transferred after rejected from a higher ranked journal. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. Minor comments from editor who appears to have at least gotten the gist of the paper. The editor decided to reject, I am not in the club. Editor sends paper just to his/her peers with predefined ideas. Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. Only quibble is one referee got stuck on a (not applicable) approach and wouldn't let go. The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. Quick rejection. Suggested a top field journal! Reviewers' concerns are reasonable but they didn't provide helpful suggestions. linking the paper with the "literature in the field", although we specifically say that our empirical application is novel to the field, so there are no comparable references. The editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions. Second round--took less than a month to get 2 detailed second reports from referees--impressive! After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee.
Lyran Starseed Markings,
What I Learned Roz Chast,
What Happened To Harambe Kid,
What's The Big Whoop About Makin Whoopee,
Articles E
