Not surprised to hear that the impact of the journal is going down. Editor Prof. David Peel is a very nice guy. 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) No refund. Desk rejected in 10 days. less than 2 weeks, recommended field journal. It took the referees / editor 5 months to look at my revised script to then just accept it without any further comments. Do not offer any innovative technique. Then took about 14 months to be come out in print. Job Market Resources - Department of Economics - UW-Madison But 10 months is too long. Referee only comments on the first half of the paper. Extremely poor experience. Bad experience. recommended Journal of Development Economics. Excellent referees too, no nitpicking, focused on contribution. R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. He even signed the letter. One referee for sure did not read the paper as pointed things which were actually in the paper. We were asked to collect additional data for our existing experimental treatments to increase our statistical power. AE recommended other journals. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a papers contribution. One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. EconJobRumors.com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is a website for academic economists. Insightful and reasonable referee reports. A complete discrage. Bad experience. 1 referree was critical, but offered great suggestions, other 2 were mediocre at best. Fantastic experience. Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). Both referees caught the major issue in the paper and offered great suggestions for moving forward. 9 days. Clearly a club journal. Very unprofessional. About 3 weeks turnaround. Faculty of Economics Austin . Overall fair process. Reports were very positive, it took us 12 weeks to resubmit. Good editing process. We made almost all of the changes required by the referees and the editor accepted it. I have no problem receiving a desk-reject, but the stated reasons show no understanding of our research. Very weak report. Reasonable comments from the referee, extremely fast and efficient process. Extremely fast and thoughtful. Helpful reports, overall good experience. Desk rejected within two weeks. Very good reports that help us to improve the paper a lot. Victoria Ziqi Hang (U of Washington), Freddie Papazyan (UCSD), Lukas Bolte (Stanford), Christine Szerman (Princeton), Alfonsi (Berkeley), Raghav Malhotra (Warwick), Regina Seibel (Zurich), Philipp Wangner (Toulouse), Anna Vitali (UCL), Morten Grindaker (BI Business School), Tony Fan (Stanford), Elena Ashtari Tafti (UCL), Xiao Shan (Zurich), Andre Sztutman (MIT), Via Twitter: Matranga (Chapman), Barreto (Sciences Po), Coly (PSE), Galvez (Banco de Espaa), Petracchi (Brown), Miglino (UCL), Casella (UPenn), Morzenti (Bocconi), Perdoni (Edinburgh), Possnig (UBC), Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson), Borghesan (Penn), Van der Beck (Swiss Finance Institute and EPFL), Ferey (LMU), Seibel (Zurich), Acquatella (Harvard), D'Adamo (UCL), Vattuone (Warwick), Mugnier (CREST), Decker (Zurich), Morazzoni (UPF), Decker (Zurich), Altmann (Oxford), Jin (BU & CMU), Diegert (Duke), Guigue (CREST), Leroutier (SSE), Ramakrishnan (WUSTL), Souchier (Stanford), Banchio (Stanford GSB), Sullivan (Yale), Acquatella (Harvard), Jin (BU), Diegert (Duke), Herstad (Chicago), Schaner (USC),Gudgeon (West Point), Wiseman (Berkeley), Kochar (USC), Li (MIT Sloan), Ostriker (MIT), Zou (Oregon AP), U.S. Good referee reports. Shleifer was the editor. Editor very sympathetic, but rejected. Reject due to the non-response by the referee. Long and bad reviewing process. One useless report, but the other one is decent. wanted to reject from the outset. 48hr desk rejection with a weird comment from the editor; You did not address related marketing literature! Bad experience overall. Eight weeks to get two very high-quality reports. Professional editor. Desk rejected in less than a week. Editor agreed. Not to say, the shortcoming is an accepted norm till one finds a better way. Conley is a very nice Editor. Second ref put thought into it but was of a heterodox stripe that I'm not. I think he/she was too lazy or unfamiliar with the literature to read the paper carefully. Desk rejection with no comments in 3 weeks. Quick, very good feedback. Mostly good comments, though not given much detail about main criticism. The editor's comments were no less helpful and extensive as referees' reports. "Thank you for your paper. 1 reviewer R&R, two reject. 10 days for desk reject. No comments from the unknown handling editor. Reviewers seem to be very well acquainted with my research area (health). Editor was polite. Besides, the editor's messages were rude. Desk accept? The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. The editor rejected the manuscript without any useful comments. 5 days. First decision in 2 months. No comments whatsoever, in an un-signed email with 2 generic sentences, Desk rejected after one week with kind words from co-editor and recommended field journal, Poor justification, pure taste by Debraj Ray. It details the following: Preparing to go on the job market. At least it was fast I guess. Very efficient process. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. Both referees really spent time on the paper and gave lots of suggestions.So did the editor. Hard to believe. Editor didn't even read the paper and rejected it. for a desk reject with quite boring paragraphs from the editor along the lines why this is not using Angrist-Pischke methods One of the referee reports was very well informed. Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. Great feedback from editor, and semi-useful reviews. Editor rejected the paper based on the decision of board of editor. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. Not a great experience! The equation to be estimated is not well explained and basic econometric issues (e.g., the problems related to the inclusion of lagged dependent variables) are not discussed. Poorly managed journal. Overall good experience. Clearly done day before deadline. Very efficient process. Comments were meant for another paper. Useful reports. I am just not part of the club. quick and clear communication with editor. Extremely long wait at this journal for comments. I want to express my thankness to a refreee, who provded an exremly high quality report. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. In general, it is difficult to follow the derivations due to a lack of intuitive explanations. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. Not all theory papers are welcomed. Of these, 90 graduates (72%) chose positions at academic institutions and 38 graduates (27%) chose non-academic . Mark Watson was the editor. 1 report, minor issues, rejected. Two reviewers recommended rejection. Turn down without a single line of comment in both rounds. Post an advertisement. Editor said he is sorry for the wait still waiting for the outcome of the second round. 50% of Americans believe US should support Ukraine 'as long as it takes The most idiotic referees I've ever seen. The lack of referee reports makes me think it is the latter. Total waste of time. Desk reject in a few days. Recommend. Great experience. Quality of editing going down. Actually, it was overall positive. Not because of the decision but due the letter content. Actually a nice experience. Good for knowing what people didn't like, but not clear how to improve. The referee suggested rejection, and the associate editor agreed. Referees asked for useless extensions and took more than six months in each round. Largely fair points. Theory in one field sent to AE in another field doing empirics. Desk reject in 4 hours. Not a great experience. Unfortunately the paper is rejected but I hope the reports help you improve the paper for another journal. Great experience overall, Editor decided not to wait for the late referee not to slow down the process. The reviewer recommended accept after seeing the revision. Very quick process. Very useful comments from referees. Prof. Sushanta Mallick handles the paper. No complaints. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. Referee report transformed the paper significantly. Desk rejected in 14 days, just long enough to get hopes up, with boilerplate "not general interest.". Candidate Job Market Roster. Reason given: "not general enough." Rubbish report ! After waiting for 6 months received one crap report which is absolute garbage! The AE also provided his own review. Editor decided based on 1 report. No letter from the editor. Editor noted that paper of an associate editor was not cited but did not mention the name of the paper. Empty report. Letter gives no mention of reasons for rejection and even unclear on paper's final status. I read on EJMR how clubby and unfortunately British this journal is, but never expected it to be true. Somewhat useful comments from Department Editor. One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. The editor did not even realized this and rejected. Nedless to say I got no referee report even after asking. No feedback from handling editor, No refund. Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. Editorial board apparently liked the paper, but found it not sufficiently related to population economics. Very slow. The editor, one AE and some referees (in the first stage there was only one, completely irrelevant) have insulted my intelligence. No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. Fair referee reports, ref. Boilerplate "contribution not significant enough", two months pretty long for a desk reject, but can't really complain about the desk reject itself because the paper is not so great. Some feasible and some not feasible suggestions. But the editor read the paper, and recommends Econometrica or JET or TE, Katz needed less time to skim the paper and offer a few good comments than I needed to write a one-sentence cover letter, It is a Finance paper. Would choose again. Desk Reject in one week for lack of contribution. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. The referees and the editor took ridic, Editor: Heckman; high quality reports, two of the reports were helpful and constructive. 1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals. 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. Won't be doing that again Actually, it was a Reject and Resubmit because the editor liked the paper, but the reviewer was really harsh and not really understood the paper. Not too bad an experience. One very good and one very weak report. Helpful comments from the editor. Very mixed report quality. AER:Insights - Larry Samuelson, Very polite, slightly more than standard rejection letter, saying - not a good fit, although enjoyable. Useful comments from knowledgeable reviewers. Answer in 24h. desk rejection within 1 week. Probably he sent the paper to referees because he couldn't desk reject it, but his mind was made-up before hand. This page collects information about the academic mathematics job market: positions, short lists, offers, acceptances, etc. Desk rejected within 7 days. I love this journal. A really good experience and really fast. Good experience. I'd submit there again in the future. Two very useful referee reports. Very short to the point referee report. Passed the desk (Turner) in ten days. A form-letter rejection from Katz. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Referee didn't buy identification strategy. Constructive and helpful comments from the co-editor. Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. one referee report was in after three months, AE waited 9 months before making a recommendation. No comments from the editor though. Good comments, made the paper better. Two rounds of R&R, final acceptance after second round within 5 days. One referee read the paper line by line and gave constructive comments. Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; . From the abstract to the conclusion, we kept arguing like "A is not the main point, we should look at B." Duration: 2 years. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. Comments didn't make sense. Referee report was short and commented on halve of the paper. Submission for a special issue. The best rejection letter ever received. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. Nice letter. After 8 months of waiting, got the shortest referee paper ever. Worst experience ever. Will not submit again. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience! Although other comments on this journal say that the review process is long, I had very different experience. Instead, she just re-sent me her rejection (from when she was a referee before). Near-perfect experience. 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. Awesome experience. One is OK, other one is exteremly negative. The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. The submission and revision process was great and timely. Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. One fairly high-quality report, one not-so good. Very easy suggested an appropriate transfer and levied the submission fees, with editor providing quite helpful comments. Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor. way too long for a "standard" rejection. After more data were collected, the editor said "a referee suggested empirical work was not serious enough." As a theoretical contribution, it is not sufficient for Economics Letters. Desk reject after 2 months! Ona day later they reected it with a one sentence crappy referee report. Will submit again. Bad process. Economics Job Market Rumors . Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data. Very fast process. We asked to see the reports but the editor did not send them. Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us. Comments very helpful, editors took time to read the paper and were engaged throughout the process. Very bad experience as referee kept asking for more and more and finally said document was now too long and findings not interesting enough. Outcome was positive in the end, but I had to follow some nonsense instructions from the referees and the editor. Not very impressed. good reports; excellent editor who acts like an additional referee. very thorough with helpful suggestions for revision. Bad experience. The report is rubbish and incorrect. If you are in a hurry or need one to fill you CV, then choose it.. editor very helpful. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. Very good referees. If you need a fast turnaround, this is not the journal for you! The article went online first very quickly after acceptance, which was nice. Never deal with stupid journal anymore. Transfer from another Elsevier journal - additional round of R&R but easily satisfied and made the paper better. Smooth process. Scam. Finished revision in 1 month and once resubmitted took them 2 weeks to accept. Good experience. No reports provided, but editor made brief helpful comments. The co-editor gave very specific, though difficult requests for the revision. The other one, who wanted extra revises, was a bit of stupid. One felt like it was literally written 30 minutes before the deadline. Quick and professionsl process. Editor and refs liked the topic but not the empirical strategy. The paper is a solid analysis but does not sufficiently add to our understanding. I think that's fair, since I had also suspected the paper might not be a great fit. I received my Ph.D. degree at the University of Chicago in 2022. fast response but low quality referee reports, fast and reliable journal. One referee liked it, the other and the editor didn't.
Miami Dade Housing Portal,
No Pregnancy Symptoms At 5 Weeks Mumsnet,
Tom Pelphrey In Guiding Light,
Articles E