the ?author? Please post listings by subject area. No referee reports, just got notified I was accepted. But the other one was useless; it's like a collection of "minor comments.". Editor provided a letter with comments. He, however, had the balls to apologize for the delay. 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. Reject because aparently would not fit in their journal. Ref reports both frank and helpful. Brief comments from the editor. Great experience. Long process. The editor suggested a field journal in a field that had nothing to do with our paper. Or rather, the editor is very lazy to follow up on the reports. Bad experience. Weak editor. Reports included four small bullet points with badly written English. Welcome to the Mathematics Jobs Wiki 2021-2022 research positions page. Nothing substantial to improve the paper. (are we a bit paranoiac?). Referee wrote a short report with easily implementable suggestions, suggesting revision. Not anymore. First response was very good (and positive), still there was a long waiting afterwards. Drill down into the main traffic drivers in each channel below. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. This is a wiki for tracking searches in various categories for academic (i.e. Still not a fan of this journal. The most disgusting journal I have ever encountered. Not to say, the shortcoming is an accepted norm till one finds a better way. Edmans said he wanted RoF to be top 3. Very helpful feedback that made this a better paper. Mathematics Jobs Wiki. Desk reject - research objectives and empirical methods questioned, paper referred to field journal. 1st round 2 1/2 months. Desk reject in two weeks. Contribution not new enough relative to the existing literature. Extremely fast and thoughtful. Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. No progress in six months although I send emails to push. Larry suggested to send it to field journal. Referee only comments on the first half of the paper. Fair referee reports, ref. Editor rejected on the basis of being too narrow. Despite disappointing turnout, reports were good with useful and specific suggestions on ways to improve the paper. Editor did not catch these oversights. The second one was a "consultation by telephone" but no feedback to us. Kinda pissed. Editor is very efficient and professional. Very efficient. is ?so ?poor? Quickest desk rejection ever experienced. 1 suggested r&r other reject, AE decided to reject--fair decision. Good comments from the editor. Reasonable motivations for desk rejection provided, Fast desk rejection, poor targeting on my part, desk reject but with useful feedback from AE. I will try in the future. First R&R was fair, 2 good ref.
EJM - Econ Job Market Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. Editor was Andrew Street. 3 months for conference decision and 2 months of journal decision. It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. Good experience. Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. My previous rejection there was north of 6 months One very low quality report, one very thorough report. A second round of minor revision was requested. Cool editor. Very good experience. Desk reject in 7 days. quick decision by the editor. Fast turnaround. Not good enough for general interest. happy for a quick decision. The first revision took around 5 months. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. one positive one negative, editor chose to reject. 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. Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). Editor rejected because paper topic (public finance) is not what tey are currently looking for. Resubmitted after 3+ months of work, but replies to referees went lost and paper got rejected. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. Desk reject after 1 week. Referees ok, not great. Hello! Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). Comical journal. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. 48 hour DR, no particular comments from Shleifer except interesting paper, suggest AEJ:applied. And some more nice words. Comments just so-so. 2 months for desk rejection is awkward. Three rounds. Very efficiently run journal.
Understanding the job market - American Economic Association 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. Until the 1970s, junior economics hiring was largely by word of mouth. The referee is clearly not up to the task. Simply put, the reviewer does not believe in my results (simulations from calibrated macroeconomic model). At the time the editor had still the paper sitting on his desk. 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. Got a form letter. Short turn around time. Desk rejected after a week with no comments. Very efficient process. Desk reject after 2 months. Editor guidance also helpful. One reviewer asking for minor revisions, the other clearly reject the paper. Worst experience so far. Desk rejected in 6 hours. A good journal, Quick and fair outcome with a nice response from the editor, Good experience with every step completed in a timely fashion. Contribution too small. Editor uninterested. Editor read the paper and outlined clear and fair reasons for rejection. Emailed the editor at JPE for a brief explanation of why the paper was desk rejected so that I could improve it. Submitted August 14, 2015. Two reports. Journal: Utilities Policy (was not included as a journal to chose). Too long waiting time. Two very useful ref reports in the first round. The other is constructive but not as good. Overall good experience. Fair decision. Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. Arbitrary decision without sending it to refs by incompetent editor. Four RR rounds. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. Weird editor pushing for a change in the results. Seven months at least the reports where good. quick turnaround and helpful referee report. Joerg Baten seems to be literally an idiot making me wonder how he got picked. Claudia Rae Sahm (ne Foster) is an American economist, leading the Macroeconomic Research initiative of the Jain Family Institute. Good experience. Awful experience. I wish them luck. Editor picked reasonable comments, asked to take into account suggestions, accepted the paper after the referees agreed that what I did is reasonable. Editor didn't read the paper, based her decision on reports. Okay referee reports. 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. Split referees, Adda came down on the side of the negative ones. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. The editor (Hongbin Li) rejects because of lack of fir with the journal's mission. Overall, the decision was not fair. Very efficient process with explicit timeline. Special issue editor started to referee himself. Process seemed very fair. Ever. The editor was quick and helpful. Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. Editor efficient, but strange experience: Two referees were very favorable, but the third referee rejected by quoting a "flaw" which was in fact correct. One of the best run journals in macro. Neither referee is hostile. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. Took almost 3 months for the first reports. No comments about the paper itself. short straightforward paper, should take max 2 hours to read carefully,still under review, editor (Hall) non-responsive, waiting 30 months for response, editor not responding to inquiries. 2 good reports, clearly improved the paper. Placement Director - Alessandro Pavan Email: alepavan@northwestern.edu. The editor prefers state-of-the-art methods rather than good ideas. Awfully slow. The Editor does appologize on the long delay saying one referee did not provide the report. Therefore, we have decided not to review the paper. Horrible experience, late response, useless report. The shitty one referred to multiple papers in very low ranked journals authored by the same set of authors. They pointed out several issues of my paper, but they are either wrong or something that can be easily fixed. Serious referee report, but without any helpful particular suggestion. Very slow. good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. Although QJE may be one of the oldest professional journal of economics published in the English language, it is also stale. Formulaic letter. Bad experience with both the referee reports and the editor, Single RR, Editor said couldn't find a second reviewer. Quick-ish, 10 weeks. editor is dumber than a second coat of paint. The editor did put more weight on the negative one. Expensive but quick. Each report was one small paragraph long. very thorough with helpful suggestions for revision. Basically useless, a waste of time. I am an assistant professor at Universit de Montral. No feedback from handling editor, No refund. Two useless reports for a paper that has been accepted by another journal of general interest. Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days. Moffitt desk rejected, suggested a field journal. Not a good fit! 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.
Evidence of a Toxic Environment for Women in Economics The AE was gentle and actually read my paper. Very negative experience. Had wait for the first response awfully long. The reports are also very helpful. Made comments about Maximum Likelihood etc when I was using Method of Simuated Moments. extremely long wait, and a really poor referee report. The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. Editor provided some friendly comments. Average time between rounds of R&R (months), EJMR | Job Market | Candidates | Conferences | Journals | Night Mode | Privacy | Contact. In any case, the paper is not a good match for the JIE, both because it is highly technical and (more importantly) because it is more of a trade theory paper than an IO paper. My first ever publication. Editor said he appreciated the previous paper but seemed to reject this one (which is probably better) since it fits in with a similar literature. Very nice words from the editor but useless referee reports. 5 months for one low-quality referee report. If the editor tought the paper did not fit the scope of the journal, he should have rejected it at the very beginning of the process, without engaging in a peer-review. Good comments from referee and editor after five months. My paper was a comment, so I consider this pretty slow. thorough but not brutal enough - the paper was not very a contribution at all at the time and needed a much harsher rejection, seriously, referee reports were very thorough and demonstrated expertise, rejections were fair - just wish I would have gotten these reviewers the first time I submitted the paper. Less than 3 weeks for the first responses (major R&R) then accepted in less than a week. Just one very low quality report. Considered waste of time here. Reviewers likely not in my area; rather superficial comments. The editor rejected after 12 months mentioning 4 referee reports. I heard back really quickly with helpful comments. One useless referee report claiming that we did not make robustness checks in a journal of 2000 letters! Fast and very competent review. Horrible! "The empirical econometric novelty of the paper is not substantial enough ", Desk rejection within five days / Poor allocation of coordinating editor (microeconometrician for a time series paper), Quick desk rejection after manuscript ID was assigned. Avoid at all cost. Several rounds of mildly encouraging R&R reports, then paper was lost. Appreciate quick reject. Nice experience!!! Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). Reports were pretty good. Resubmitted and then conditional accepted within a week. Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. Disgraceful! Near-perfect experience. Incredible experience: referee said he/she didn't like the paper. Terrible experience. Submission fee not refunded. Rather short reports for waiting 6 months. Reasonable comments from referees. 4 weeks for desk rejection is too much. Only quibble is one referee got stuck on a (not applicable) approach and wouldn't let go. Didn't make the paper better at all. Waiting for R&R results. Unbased rejection after more than six months with mediocre reports and editorial justification. I was worried about the wait, but in the end got a very good editorial letter (from Reis) with great suggestions. Quick desk reject and no comments of substance (form letter) but no cost of submission. Expected a bit better. 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. (As we've seen, courtesy of Raj Chetty and Diamond/Mirrlees, sometimes they split your paper and accept.). Referees rejected. 2 week turnaround. Would never submit anything to these people again and would never recommend to anyone else either. Probably I was a bit lucky the 2 referees liked the idea of teh paper sicne ti was a bit sort and basically asked me to do some mreo stuff. the editor was helpful and nice though. Five weeks, submission to rejection. Rather weird outcome but quite quick for a journal of its reputation. Another 2 months and a second round of very minor revisions. Could have desk rejected and saved us all the trouble. 10 months is too long to get back. Editor handled it well. Fast and friendly. Special fast-track call. 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. They have not released it, sorry. Editorial process was efficient and fair. four reports. Desk rejected within two weeks. 1 month desk reject. Editor does not made any comment, probably has not read the paper at all. After resubmitting, accepted in 2 weeks without going to referees. AFter 3 months of being "under review", I get this email: I regret to say that we are not able to offer publication to your paper. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Great experience - referee and editor very helpful. Old fashined. One not very helpful/professional report. Editor clearly read the paper and claimed a referee did too. Great experience in general! Bad to useless reports after an unacceptably long response time. Incredibly tough process with three rounds of revisions - first round ended up me writing a response as long as the original paper. Desk reject in one week, some good comments from editor. Some useful comments, most misreads and poor understanding of model. Horrible experience. Desk-rejected after ten days. Very good and useful referee reports. To be honest, I had a hard time understanding exactly what the point of your paper is. Fast turnaround, I'm very happy with the experience. Editor suggested top field, decided not to send to referrees due to "narrowness of topic." A really good experience and really fast. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. At least was fast at just over two months. Ended up being a better paper. Fast response time. 5 months for a desk reject! The referee checked my citations and offered helpful comments. Super fast process than I had expected. Seriously, avoid this journal. Expected better from an AEJ. So despite I got a rejection, the experience is actually not that bad. No further comment from the editor. One referee report excellent. Referee comments show that it could be an RR but the editor rejected. awful experience. Instead, the reviewer says you did not cite a literature that is totally beside the point, the main concept of your paper is not mentioned not even once in that literature. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Overall, very good experience. Second round 4 months before acceptance. Desk rejected in a week. Journal of Economics and Finance Education. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, excellent experience. First referee constructive and positive. Very poor referee reports. 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. Still my favorite rejection of all time - used Shakespeare in a footnote, and first referee (whose English was subpar) said that the footnote was "very poorly written." Fast, bad luck with the editor who simply did not seem to see the point of the paper. Two good referee reports, useful comments, theory; 2 decent referee reports and 1 suggestive letter from an editor. Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. All referee reports were gave entirely stylistic comments with no real grounds for rejection. Took some time due to lots of things to revise, but all the requests were fair. Short unhelpful referee reports which ask to cite referees. Very very good comments, referee was clearly very knowledgeable. report and a couple of pretty good ones. Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. Desk rejected the next day. Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that! Very constructive suggestions. However, it seems the process is one editor first decide whether to send to referee or not but a second editor makes the final decision (William Kerr)?
Economics Job Market Updates / Wiki Nice experience despite a rejection. Very weak report. Within a week with no justification. Editor couldn't find referees, rejected and claimed two reports but only one sent. 2 days to get a desk rejection. Editor rejected within less than 10 days. This was high risk but of course at the end worth it because it is a good journal. The lack of referee reports makes me think it is the latter. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. Very different than my past experience. All editors have lined up to publish their own papers (just see the forthcoming papers, 3 (three!!) 2.5 weeks. Pathetic referee reports. I will never submit there again, Excellent and constructive reports. Otherwise fine. Coming off of a failed R&R at a higher ranked journal. All queries tough but manageable - only difficulty was having 3 refs say sometimes contradictory things. But overall very very slow process. April 16, 2022. Over the past six years, the department has placed a total of 128 graduates in academic, research, and government jobs. Available November 2022 for positions in Summer/Fall 2023. Letter from the editor not so much informative. Under 2 weeks for a desk reject. Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. 2 months between submission and final decision! Overall a good experience! 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). Very pleased. Great experience. Three high quality referee reports. I received an answer of the editor after 2 months. No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. But then again it was my fault, I didn't run an experiment! 1 Month and 10 days for first decision is too long. The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. The editor was fair and provided reasons why the paper was rejected. Department of Geography. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. the journal is recovering. One positive, three negative. useless comments from editor. Editor and referees seemed willing to listen to reason which encouraged me to work hard on the revision and make my case when I thought reports misguided. R&R after 3-4 months. Fairly long wait though. Referred to field, seems editor at least scanned and maybe even read the whole thing. said it was a matter of fit. The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! Horrible experience. Giles is a great editor. "In order to speed up and improve the submission process for both authors and referees, we have raised the number of papers that we reject without seeking reports.". I was pleased with the experience because I've never made this far with them. The paper is not of the interest of SCW readers! It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Very quick response. All reports are positive. Referee reports were of high quality. Two very useful referee reports. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. Recommended second tier general interest journals. New . Big lie. Desk reject for paper being too narrow for the audience of the journal. Three mediocre reports. Very low quality report. My worst experience ever. 1 report, minor issues, rejected. They will help to improve the paper. also received comments from the old reviewer that were better than the first review. (310) 206-1413. Horrible treatment. journal has a reputation for being out of the mainstream of econ. Editor and co-editor are extremely nice and supportive. Poor experience, will not submit again. Both read, understood and gave a few comments. Didn't let it go, Editor told him to "#"# off and published the paper anyway. Wilson inform me, on average, EI first decision is in 67 days, but my six months delay is not due to neglect (YEAH RIGHT! No comment from the editor,ridiculous journal. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!! It is not clear why the referee does not like the paper but it is clear he does not need 5 months for such a report. One positive review, one negative, referee took the side of the negative. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. Of course we don't like the reports, or editor's comments, but there is some helpful stuff. Process a bit slow. Reject because apparently would not fit in their journal. frustrating, because paper not assigned to the editor who works in my field. 2.5 months review. Second referee made some useful suggestions. Desk rejection in 6 minutes with a "pretended" letter, which could be used for any paper. rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report. Complete garbage. To avoid. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. Waste of time and money. Not sure whether to classify this as a desk or referee reject. It too me the editor 13 months to desk reject. Applying for academic jobs. Rejected for arbitrary reasons. Pretty rough coments from an editor who clearly did not get the point of the paper. Reject due to the non-response by the referee. Longish time to first response but good reports and a ref who just loved digging into my equations. Great experience, one of the referees truly improved the paper substantially. Useful and professional referee report . Quick and professionsl process. 4 months with the editor before being sent to referees. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. Russia was born in Kiev. 4 months for a desk rejection, frustratingly slow. Job Market Paper: Sorting in the Marriage Market: The Role of Inequality and its Impact on Intergenerational Mobility. 2 strong reports with valid empirical critiques, 1 less so.
Should I choose Stanford, Columbia, or UChicago for an undergraduate Both referees suggested papers to be cited in the literature review, which seem like their own papers. Three months for an "out of scope" decision. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so." Very good experience. The editor is responsive. One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor. very fast response and useful comments from a referee. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list. Mentioned but did not provide reports, just asked for a more policy oriented conclusion, unresponsive to emails. Andrew deJong The Effect of Common Ownership on Pricing: Evidence from the Airline Industry . 2 years no reply, then short letter and reject, I would never send there again. recommend ?that? Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending). I would submit again or recommend this outlet! 2 weeks. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. Other two reports are fine, although one other also did not read a section, s/he says. What a joke! 9 months to one ref report which was not helpful. 6 months after that paper online. Good process. Fast review process. Two rounds of R&R! Bad report, condescending.
Departament | Facultat d'Economia i Empresa - Job Market Candidates Reject and resubmit. Fair and quick process.
(Serious) are you actually worried about AI alignment? Economics Job Also the editor gave us good comments. Good reports. Would try again in the future. Very pleasant experience. Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. The manuscript improved substantially as well, thanks to the reports. R&R only one round; after submitting the revised version, only waited for six days until final acceptance. A true scholar and a gentleman. Quick, very good feedback. The closures follow the consequences of the 2020 BLM-Antifa riots that . One magnificient + one so-so ref report. Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. Readers familiar with the operation of the market can proceeddirectlytothe"data"subsectionbelow. The editor VanHoose made some good comments though. Some not so fair. The referee suggested rejection, and the associate editor agreed. Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. 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". Suggested a top field journal! One report only, not very helpful, relatively slow for just one report. Some valid points, but overall Kahn's criticism was thin. Garbage. I published my article in a very decent journal later. Campus visits. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. Journal is basically a scam now. Annoyed because all of the concerns were addressed and yet she could not be bothered to re-read the paper. Do not submit there. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; . Perhaps we can call JABO an experimental journal now. Very long wait. desk with a letter from editor. Funny thing is Editor endorsed reviewer's response.
What was the Dittmar scandal at Michigan/Ross in the old days? 2 reviewers, 1 poor, 1 quite demanding and useful. 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. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. Very helpful reports and overall a smooth process. At least response in 1.5 month. What can i say more? Disappointing.
Also, reviewers are non-economists, providing some real WTF comments. Desk Rejected after 2 days. Fair points by referees. The only referee who respond wrote some nonsense without reading the paper. The referee report was very poor. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. Very bad experience as referee kept asking for more and more and finally said document was now too long and findings not interesting enough. Form-letter rejection. KS super smart and constructive feedback. Editor was also very helpful. The decision is quite fair and briefly justified. Very helpful comment. Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. On the downside, the time between each of the two rounds of R&R was longish. I then spent 2+ months revising, only to be rejected (after another two months), no new reports, but detailed comments from the editor.