editor said the paper had too much economics, The editor was very helpful to summarize what he thought should be done from 4 referee reports. 1 Month and 10 days for first decision is too long. oh they're good! Couldn;t get second referee so editor said he read carefully himself. Bad to useless reports after an unacceptably long response time. Chiara Paz and Alice Wang. The other did not understand the basic identification strategy in the paper. 2 reviewers, 1 poor, 1 quite demanding and useful. reports. Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. What is up with Econ Job Rumors? : r/academiceconomics - reddit Great letter from Nezih G and two good referee reports. not worth the time and effort. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. Fast desk reject on subjective grounds. His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting Decision based on 1 one-paragraph review that didn't refer to anything specific in the paper. The editor likes the idea, but things the method is not new, so recommended to a field journal. Six weeks for a desk reject with no reasons offered, Under editor's evaluation for almost 2 months. The other referee has no idea what I am doing. Not very fast but good in overall. (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint). 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. Editor read paper and gave good comments, but ultimately rejected. Desk rejected with 1 sentence after 2 months. other outlets are suggested. Do not send your papers to this journal. Reason: topic/results too narrow with respect to broad audience. Fast Review process. Report very critical but useful nonetheless. I am asked to send to another journal because the paper is not a good fit, the editor is very nice, professional and efficient. Good to be fast, but quality of feedback should be taken care of more at this journal. Two months for desk reject -- no comments given. Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. 1 positive but short & useless, 1 incompetent negative who didn't even understand the historical topic. Generic letter from editor. Referee comments were pretty minor. Harold Cole was excellent as editor. the? My previous rejection there was north of 6 months One very low quality report, one very thorough report. Suggest field journal. Some unfair comments about replicating what other papers have done (which are already discussed in the paper!) Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. Initial response for R&R was quite fast, but the second response after the resubmission took quite a long time, and it seems that the paper was just sitting at the editor's desk for more than a month before they were assigned back to the referees. Many, many factual errors about the paper. Reject and resubmit. Slow as hell. plus for a quick turnaround. SVAT is a full service firm in the areas of bookkeeping, accounting, tax and small . 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. Will never submit to this journal again. Very unprofessional. Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. Rejected by editor. One positive review, one negative, referee took the side of the negative. Unfair letter from Emi N. Great letters from four referees and three of them are very positive! Helpful editor. Desk rejection based on lack of fit, altough there were at least 4 papers published on the same topic in previous years. A colleague from another school submitted there and also had to wait a long time for very poor quality referee reports. Very constructive comments in the 1st round, quicking converging in the 2nd round. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. Accepted version was greatly improved. Would definitely recommend it even if it's a longshot. Editor Michele Boldrin did a good job handling the paper. Harsh critical comments from the editor, a useful report from the referee. Editor didn't read the paper. 2 Weeks. submission was in 2017. Academic Jobs Wiki | Fandom suggest some field journals. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. Reports have very clear constructive instructions and fast response. Brief, ignorant, editor's letter. Hellwig rejected, suggested 2nd tier journal such as ET. Bad Experience. Amazing efficiency. both reviewers rejected for different reasons, reports were overall helpful but some comments showed lack of understanding. 19 Jul 2023. In print a couple of weeks later. UghhhI will probably withdraw the submission, It is the worst experience I have ever had with a journal. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. Quick to online first. That mean 5 people read my paper? One referee was thoughtful and recommended acceptance; Second referee asked for more results; AE agreed with the 1st referee. Conveyed no sense at all that anyone even looked at the paper. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. He suggested a general interest journal. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. Bad experience overall. Most dishonest rejection. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. Overall, not bad experience. One referee report was very detailed. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. The referee reports were fairly good. Very clear and good process. reports. Waited a year for two low quality reports. One of them gave some good suggestions, but I disagree with some other points she made. One year since submission, no replies to my queries shitty journal. "Referee report" Biggest joke on Earth!! The editor did not even get that the comments were wrong. One almost non-existent referee report (basically two lines just saying the paper is not broad enough), one very detailed and overall positive report. The editor's comments show that he is totally uninformed about the literature. The acceptance came quickly after the second round of review. Paper very close to editor's (Rogerson) field of interest. The paper was "with the editor". The paper was triying to test unit roots on capacity utilisation for a cross-section of countries to test some macro models; so it did stuff that even a Master's can understand. One positive one negative. Nice words from Editor. Was not worth waiting that long (this is an understatement). WBER changes editor and the new editor (Pavcnik) reject the paper. Fast turnaround, I'm very happy with the experience. However comments from the negative one are the most detailled and helpful. took the money. Don't submit here. I got two rounds of R&R. Mostly unhelpful report filled with numerous unnecessary resentful and bitter. Economics Journal Submission Wiki | Economics Job Market Rumors 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). At every round, it took them only 2 months to respond back. Suggested a general interest journal. He only mentioned that I failed to mention a lot of papers who were all by the same person. completely ?misread? Annoying! Reviews not very helpful as it seems like psychologists reviewed it. Reviewers seem to be very well acquainted with my research area (health). Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. Pulled a weak R&R. About 3 weeks turnaround. Desk reject within 5 days. Referee report transformed the paper significantly. Both reviews helpful - one very extensive. One referee report only. Editor also gave very detailed description of the necessary changes. Desk reject after 2 months. Good experience. Note that the shorter the time span considered, the more likely the ranking is going to be spurious. Very slow. One referee reports is only 2 short paragraphs long and completely wrong. Afwul experience. Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Very quick route to getting useful reports. Desk rejected in 10 days because the editor wasn't a fan of the data. Polite, even quite positive reports. Quickly accepted after the revisions were completed. The other one was less so. reviewer knew an aspect of the literature and appeared to promote his own unpublished paper under review at the same journal. The decision is quite fair and briefly justified. I was pleased with the experience because I've never made this far with them. Editor read the paper and deskrejected in less than a week. A drawback is that it takes time. In the meantime they lied to me saying that it was out for review and that they were awaiting referee scores. Rejected afterwards. I had much better experience in American Journal of Health Economics. Extremely slow journal and not well managed journal. Nice comments and feedback from Associate Editor. Drop the "Economics." Just "Job Market Rumors." Not submitting again to this journal. Desk rejected in a week. Another one was sharp. Desk rejected. The comments from the editor are also disappointing: his main suggestion is to send our 7,500 words paper to economics letters. Economic Theory Bulletin. The current reality of the economics job market is this. Agreed that this journal is a joke. Other than that, the process was good. Finance Job Rumors (489,418) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,722) Micro Job Rumors (15,231) Macro Job Rumors (9,801) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,526) Industry Rumors (40,345) Ultimately fair. Entire process takes 1 month. reports: 1 ridiculous, 1 useless, 1 useful, 6 months from initial submission to acceptance. Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). No indication that the editor had even read the paper. Desk rejected in two days. will definitely try it again next time. Great experience - referee reports really helped improve the paper. Three good reports and fair decision. Editor rejected without comments. The editor picked a new (hostile) referee in the 2nd round. one week to accepted with minor changes. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, excellent experience. Associate editor rejected on poor grounds. reject after 3 months. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. instantaneous rejection, however, without any comments, 5 Weeks for a desk reject without comments. 14 months from submission to publication online. I received an answer of the editor after 2 months. Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. 2 week turnaround. Said the contribution was too small, which I accept. The AE report made no sense at all, and had very little substance. The AE was gentle and actually read my paper. Good experience. The referee had a chip on their shoulder and the editor stepped in. Was actually scared based off of runors I heard on this site. 19. Very quick. One very good report, one OK. One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal. Had to send several emails inquiring about the status. Got a slow desk rejection from LB telling me/us to cite someone I cited in the intro. Useless reports. Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. You can even not see these wordings in Game of Thrones. Decent reports. The editor barely read the paper and decided to just reject it At least it was quick response - 11 days. Job Market Candidates | Department of Economics Duke University. The editor suggested an alternative outlet, which was where the paper eventually got published. Serious referee report, but without any helpful particular suggestion. Two very poor referee reports. Two helpful referee reports. The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it. Positive comments from the editor. Referee comments show that it could be an RR but the editor rejected. Some decent comments nevertheless. 2 weeks for desk reject. Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. Overall positive experience. After 10 months waiting, I had a revise and resubmit decision. Editor rejected the paper based on the decision of board of editor. fast response but low quality referee reports, fast and reliable journal. Would submit again. Reasonable referee report. Good experience. Working on my R&R now. Dest rejected in 2 days. Made some changes, argued against other changes, got accepted. You won't get in unless you are in the 'cabal'. Special issue editor started to referee himself. There's this cute girl who plays guitar very badly in just her bra on YouTube, Hyatt Hotels, Data Scientist- posted one week ago, 982 applicants, Young men reveal why so many of them are single: Dates feel more like job inter, A day in the life of childless single broette, "Just get an industry job" - It's not that simple. Search by field of study. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. 1 really excellent, positive report. desk rejected. You have to earn it! Excellent process. Simply put, the reviewer does not believe in my results (simulations from calibrated macroeconomic model). Unfortunately, this is my usual experience with EER. Referees tough & somewhat demanding. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. One useless report, but the other one is decent. 2 weeks to receive desk rejection. Job Market Paper: Local Polynomial Estimation of Time-Varying Parameters in GMM. Bad experience. Big fat load of help. Desk rejected by Sarte in 3 days without comments. Strongly recommend submitting there. There was no mistake. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. People need filters. Clearly he had read the paper. Super quick process. seven weeks to say poor fit when similar and cited papers are published there. Kind words by editor, though weird reasoning, nearly a month for an anonymous desk rejection. best submission experience. Helpful comments from the editor (besides the usual thy shall cite my papers). Would try again. Came back to my office at 12:05. BTW, "Under review" all the time during the reviewing process, similar to AEA journals (but different from some other journals using manuscript central). Perhaps we can call JABO an experimental journal now. 2 good reports, clearly improved the paper. Submitted July 2012, short empirical paper, still waiting for first response. My paper was transferred after rejected from a higher ranked journal. Two weeks to desk reject. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh, London, Manchester - UK, Predoctoral Fellow (Fair?) So unprofessional and shameful. Desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Good process (and none of the coauthors are from 02139). desk reject after 9 days - reason: editor feels not suitable for publication. Competent referee reports, although one of them extremely hostile. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. 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). Pretty smooth process, with Eric Leeper being very kind and helpful. Very good experience; desk reject with highly valuable and fair comments by the co-editor within 10 days. Editor was super helpful. Reports were sound and improved the paper substantially. 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. Editor just pointed at reports and made no obvious effort to think about the paper. Finance Job Rumors (482,056) General Economics Job Market Discussion (727,619) Micro Job Rumors (14,915) Macro Job Rumors (9,755) European Job Market (100,185) China Job Market (102,275) Industry Rumors (39,946) Ljunquist is pretty passive. Great judgment. No refund. 2 years and counting, for a small paper. To view archived listings in this job market cycle that are now inactive, check this box View listings from the previous (August 1, 2022 - January 31, 2023) JOE cycle. Two reports that are quite detailed. A disappointment. Cantillon is not a good editor. 2 shortish referee reports one fairly positive the other fairly negative, editor decided to reject based on lack of originality. No further comment from the editor. It took 1 year from submission to acceptance, but the journal was quick, I took to long to do the revisions. One of my best experiences. 1 referee report after 1 year, referee did not like the idea, editor Pok-sang Lam. Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. Go report in 2 days. Despite the rejection, a very fair process with constructive comments and a fast response. 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. Ref rejected in 3 weeks. Some fair some unwarranted comments. Managing the academic job market - Chris Blattman The referee report was more appropriate for R&R. Emailed twice to ask about status and no decency of even replying. Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper. OMG: ht tps : // incels . wiki / Economics Job Market Rumors It has been about 16 months now. This Rumors site allows only a maximum of 12 months from submission to decision. Single ref report had three very minor questions. Why do Americans obsess over Japan work hours and suicide rates? Rejection based on technical point, which could be fixed withing 2 weeks. The paper is not of the interest of SCW readers! I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. Desk reject in 4 hours. Hastily written by PhD student. AER:Insights. 3 Reports. Both referees were a bit too negative, but the reports were useful. KG was DE in finance. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. Very quick response from Larry Katz. Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. one positive one negative, editor chose to reject. It ended up being published in a higher ranked journal. Some conflicting recomms that editor didn't address. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. Desk reject after two weeks. Both have suggestions (one extensive, one less so). The editor read the paper in great details and added a lot of comments to the referees'. Kind, thoughtful, and brief editor letter. Very good referee reports - largely positive but requiring some modifications, deleting one section. Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days. Editor suggested that paper was better suited for JDE (LOL). Would choose again. Unhappy with the outcome of course, but pleased with the process and the handling. Minor changes, though. ", Two reports - one thorough and one probably by a grad student, One associate editor recommended rejection and no other comments/suggestions, but one referee provided very useful comments and s/he seems to be positive about the paper. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. One report was very poor and full of bsh*t while the other was good. No comment from the editor,ridiculous journal. Was advised to submit to a field journal, Good reports, efficient process, we just didn't meet Katz's "general interest" standard, Surprised didn't get a desk reject. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. Comments from Larry very helpful. Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. Hard to believe. I regret to inform you that we do not consider this work to be of sufficient interest to our readership to warrant publication. However, the editor (Mallick) kindly suggested to add papers from this journal ("As there is not citation from this journal when the journal has published several papers on this topic"). Two referee reports and one report from the associate editor. fluent ?in? Co-editor felt nothing "wrong" with paper but does not made enough of a contribution to warrant publication. Resubmitted after 3+ months of work, but replies to referees went lost and paper got rejected. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. Comments like "I do not understand the findings of this study" show that the journal is not what it used to be. Economics Job Market Rumors - Forum for Economists The editor read the paper carefully to make the decision. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. The latex formatting at the end was the most painful part. Very efficient; referee reports are of pretty high quality. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. Wouldn't submit here again. I appreciate the quick desk reject. 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. Analytic number theorists: your opinion on TK's claimed disproof of the RH ? Good reports. Pretty efficient turnaround. Very complementary and helpful reviews. Seems like being rejected in virtue of the magnificence of the journal. Whole process super quick. Quick first response with major r&r. Got accepted after 2nd round. took 7 months for 1 referee report, but the R&R was quick. Reasonably good experience; referee not overly experienced with topic. Articles/sites of interest for students on the Job Market. Rare experience where every round made paper much better. It appears they don't like overly technical papers (it's an interdisciplinary journal so depends on who the editor is at the time - if not an economist, then avoid). Referee said there is a mistake in the proof. 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. Mentioned that they do not consider theoretical papers. The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. 2 referee reports: 1 very detailed recommending revisions; other useless. Bit disappointing given the high fee. Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. Very fast and the submission fee is relatively cheap and even cheaper for grad students. I recommend. desk reject, but editor basically provided a referee report, desk reject - generic letter from editor who did not like the topic. Rejected as "Given the poor quality of provincial GDP statistics, CER has decided not to publish papers based on provincial GDP data for now until the true data series at the provincial level are reconstructed" but they are still publishing with this data see for instance Lv, Liu, and Li 2020 Fiscal incentives, competition, and investment in China. Complete waste of time!! Got 3 ref reports - 1 RR 2 reject. Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. The Editor Requate cannot distinguish between partial and general equilibrium. Very good experience. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. multiple rounds, one of round took about a year. The first response took more than I expected, but the referee's comment was very constructive. Editor claimed an expert in the field reviewed the paper while the referee admitted in his first sentence of the report that he is not. Low quality referee reports. The editor decided major revision. Took way to long for three one page poor quality reports. Referee report useless. Quality suggestions from all three reports & editor. 1 Referee provided useful comments that improved the paper. Desk reject in one week. Good process. Really good experience, good comments and moved quickly through the process. 2 quick rounds of R&R. Quick desk rejection. Referees obviously did not read the paper. All in all it was a fair rejection and a good experience overall. Will never submit here. Fast reviews with reasonable comments. Took 5 months in total, 2 reports, a paragraph each. But written by big shots. Decent reports, no complain. Rejected because topic did not fit the journal. Tough referee was going through three rounds but eventually accepted. The editor informed that she is a cross section econometrician and she did not understand our panel data paper. Enough said. It's the kind of disappointment that makes you stop caring about research. Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. only one report (quite helpful). submitted half a year ago. Desk rejected in 2 weeks. Terrible report. It is a disgrace to the profession reflects poorly on the journal. Rejected within two weeks. Suggested AEJ:AE, RESTAT and top field. 2022-2023 Ph.D. Job Market Candidates - Department Of Economics Two very constructive reports. Two fantastic referee reports within 1.5 months. Neither felt that the paper was a good fit for an urban journal. 2 mildly useful reports. Fast editors. Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. Ph.D. Good experience. I did what was asked, and the revised paper was accepted by the editor after one week. Easy Process. Two of them suggested a possible solution. Decent referee report, acceptance 3 days after submitting revision. Will never try it again. Fair process and good report. Good overall experience. One report was an absolute travesty and surely had to be disregarded. Useful reports. Good. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. Garbage journal, not a real journal, avoid. 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). Timely, informed, and critical. The two anonymous referees were surely competent even though they did not go in depth as the editor did. With referees in 15 days of submission. Referee really helped me to improve this paper with a great report.