Editor accepted the paper after we made some modifications recommended by the referee. One quite short referee report. He gave thoughtful comments about how to better target elsewhere. The reviewer recommended accept after seeing the revision. 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 handled it well. Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago. Repeated enquiries ("hey, its been a year now") have been followed by profuse apologies. The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress. Horrible. I am an assistant professor at Universit de Montral. One of them gave some good suggestions, but I disagree with some other points she made. The other did not understand the basic identification strategy in the paper. One month for the desk reject. Not so many comments; recommended two very good field journals. Contribution not new enough. Secondary: Applied Macroeconomics and International Economics. Two rounds of R&R. 9 months for 1 2-page referee report. Robert J. Barro desk rejected the paper in less than 24 hours. editor(s) provided good comments too. Katz was encouraging. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. Great comments from editor. Very late and vague one page referee report, rejection based on perceived bad fit with journal. [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors is only lightly moderated and preserves posters' anonymity. Overall, not bad experience. Editor had different opinion. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. Received first reply after 7 weeks. One report was not very helpful. Editor provided detailed advice throughout the entire revision process. It was clear the editor asked a former student to be the referee, I guess the editor does not feel positively about the paper. it ?could ?be ?the ?case ?that ?I ?have? Bad experience. Couldn;t get second referee so editor said he read carefully himself. The editor Adonis Yatchew was very helpfull and efficient. Letters from the Editor was nice. Contacting the editor twice did not result in speeding up the process (but we received at least a reply). Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. Market Design; Organizational Economics; Personnel Economics; Race and Stratification in the Economy; Risks of Financial Institutions ; Urban Economics; . Job Market. 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). Do not offer any innovative technique. One of the papers has over 3000 citations. The referee reports were fairly good. May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. Two reports. Not very fast but good in overall. The paragraph/comment not constructive. Old fashined. The main tasks of the potential candidates would be to carry . Recommended to try other health journals. All suggest major revision and change of approach. Zero constructive comments! AWFUL editorial work. Osbourne rejected following a 6-7 line bs report by adding his own very cheap comments. Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. Would submit again. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. Insightful and reasonable referee reports. The editor wrote the 2nd report. Rejection reason: not general interest enough. Demanding but helpful referee reports. Not sure whether to classify this as a desk or referee reject. Desk rejected, but after consultation with a referee who provided a mini-report. Rejected for not have a theoretical contribution. Every time I'm impressed by how precise the reviews and suggestions are. There is no option to choose 'Referees Accepted' but 'Editor Rejected'. Friendly referee with clear remarks. Resubmitted within the same day. It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. Two referee reports; one high quality, one very low quality. This referee made no specific comments. Two reports, both harsh and recommended reject. **** this journal. Slightly more informative than a desk rejection. One excellent report, one mediocre report. The peer review process was fast. 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. Said the contribution was not enough for a JFE publication. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. At least they were fast. 51 of 55 African countries snub Ukraine Economics Job Market Rumors One excellent referee report, and one decent one. Slow moving. Bad experience overall. Editor (Rogerson) makes some encouraging comments but cannot hide the fact that the referees were not really that enthusiastic about the paper, even if they couldn't find much to criticize. 1 positive and 1 negative report - Editor rejected. Five weeks, submission to rejection. It seems from this website that this in not uncommon for this journal. placement@econ.ucla.edu. Editorial office very helpful. Extremely bad experience with this journal. After two rounds all the referee agreed to publish the paper. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). One referee report was very good; the second was also modestly helpful. quick decision by the editor. Good experience. 19 Jul 2023. one nasty and rudely written report with inaccuracies as well, one cited lack of fit. Very bad experience. Desk rejected with short but informative comment within 2 days. happy for a quick decision. Not a particularly good experience, constructive reports, editor had read the paper and gave additional comments, One bad/objectively false report, one useful report. Our claims were supported. I suspect a tight club. Fair referee reports, ref. Rejected for not general interest, brief comments by editor and a "finance scholar". Despite the rejection, a very fair process with constructive comments and a fast response. Next time, I will come back with a vip or friend of the editorial team to have positive a priori. Quick response. Editor guidance also helpful. Great experience. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. Editor letter saying that what we do is not so new. It took the editor 3 months to write two paragraphs and reject. I would submit again or recommend this outlet! Good enough experience and fair. Rejected for arbitrary reasons. the ?Nash? Long process. Editor rejected the paper, but it was not unexpected. I am currently studying the interaction between technological and demographic changes and the labor market. The editor prefers state-of-the-art methods rather than good ideas. Poor quality single report. One very good report, the other OK. Accepted after two rounds. Two rounds of R&R. 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) Job Market. Good comments from referee and editor after five months. Got accepted after 2nd round. solution? Fair enough. One nice and one not nice referee. 7 days from first submission to minor revision. a? In the first three, the referees took 3 months and tehn 9 months to take care of comments. Yep, it is. Not very useful comments from any of them. I have no clue who the referee wanted to impress, maybe the editor? Desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Very efficient process. very rigorous comments. Editor (frank) did not read the paper and wrote 2 lines arguing that there were many papers addressing similar question (which was not entirely true). Extremly disappointing for a journal which claims to be the number one field journal. Job Market. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. Disappointed. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list. Terrible to treat junior people this way. Great experience. not worth the time and effort. Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. At every round, it took them only 2 months to respond back. I had. Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations, two reports, comments not always very clear on what was wanted but still helpful. Two helpful reports. Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. One line "referee report". No complaints. After revise and resubmit, was rejected, Next year, similar article appeared in the journal authored by one of the associate editors. Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. Okay experience overall, 3 weeks for a two sentence desk rejection which suggested submitting to a more specialist journal, Overall good experience. Reports have very clear constructive instructions and fast response. AVOID it. Good reports - detailed and constructive. Will submit there in the future. Good handling by the editor (Reis). Reports were ok, but total process took way too long. Good experience. Negative report is pretty bad. And once that was done, he wanted us to rewrite the article. The reports were good and helpful. You have to earn it! Reason cited: weak paper. Very efficient journal. Made comments about Maximum Likelihood etc when I was using Method of Simuated Moments. Skip Navigation. No comments from the editor though. Extremely valuable referee reports and advices from the editor. The most idiotic referees I've ever seen. Ok referee reports. Reasonable comments from the referee, extremely fast and efficient process. They will not respond to editorial office inquiries or direct emails to the editors. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor. Efficient and professional. Extremely fast and with 2 high quality RRs. Two rounds of R&R! Following a previous piece of info: Desk rejected by another editor after almost 2 months, looking at the reason for rejecting the paper I had the feeling the editor did not read the paper. Very slow. This is designed to reduce the overall turnaround time for the journal, especially given the high volume of submissions." He gave few recommendations. Helpful and doable things. Two fantastic referee reports within 1.5 months. Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper. Desk reject in a week. Editor agreed with them. Nice editor message. Helpful comments from reviewer and editor. Submission is waste of time. He might have read the abstract--clearly doesn't know the literature enough to see the contribution. Armstrong is so much better than Hermalin 6 months for the first R&R (2 referee reports plus a very detailed report from the editor), then 3 months for the 2nd R&R, then the paper was accepted. Horrible associate editor, Arkolakis, rejected based on his personal views. One very good referee report, based on which the paper is improved significantly. Waste of money. Will submit again (other work, of course) on the basis of professionalism and treatment. Overall very good quality of reports and very helpful guidance from the editor. 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). Maybe paper is not good enough, but the "report" was not convincing either. Maybe small sample made it untouchable? Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. Very quick response. Both referees really spent time on the paper and gave lots of suggestions.So did the editor. Surprisingly efficient process given the other comments here on the journal. Two referee reports. But editor rejects. Reasonable decision. A really good experience and really fast. Shame on Co-Editor. Duration: 2 years. Would submit again. Paper desk rejected in 3 days. Lousy comments from the Editor in chief. It was most likely copy-pasted from someone elses decision letter, and I know this because they forgot to change the name on it (yes, I received a decision letter with someone else's name on it). 8 days to desk rejection. I sent an email after 5 months of submission and another after 6 months. In a word, this is not a serious journal. Editor gave me chance to convince other referee. 2 reports + report from AE which is a lot better than referee reports. Editor did not catch these oversights. Form letter. I am a macroeconomist specialized in economic growth and macro labor. Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. 2 mildly useful reports. A bit slow, but kindly acknowledged by the editor. Comments were quite simple, I resubmitted after one month, and the editor accepted the paper after 40 days. 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. A bit of wait but ok for econ standards. I submitted two papers and both took a very long time to get referee comments from and the sets of referee comments read like they were written by undergraduate students. Good comments, made the paper better. Desk reject within 1 day. Home. 2 straightforward reports with fair criticism. A number of emails without reply since then. The editor and AEs should be immediately replaced. AE also helpful. EER to toilet, the editors are clueless. It took six months for a single referee report (of exactly one paragraph of comments). Desk rejected in two days. One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. Editor Ian Walker gave us a fantastic referee report. Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). Charging for this should be a crime. Two reviews - one very positive, and one that was clearly from someone outside of the field that was not familiar with the methods or the literature. OK process, but some reports were useless. Good comments from the editor. Cocaine Bear vs Research Workshop: can you tell the difference? Quick first response with major r&r. Bad experience. Second ref put thought into it but was of a heterodox stripe that I'm not. Desk reject in two weeks after submitting a paper. One ok report, one poor. One referee commented that we didn't make a methodological contribution and asked why economists should care about Y. Great experience! Much better than plain vanilla Economics Letters. Overall fair process. One referee posted two of his own papers including url in the report, one of which was just accepted in the same journal before sending reports. Submitted in 2014. 23 hours and 30 minutes after submission, desk reject from Shleifer. Quick and professional handling by the editor. Overall, great experience despite the negative outcome, The WORST experience of my rather long life. Very quick response. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Withdrew article from consideration after 18 months of wait. I want my money back ! 1 really excellent, positive report. Two very useful ref reports in the first round. Editor was kind and offered some useful remarks. I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. one positive, one flat reject review, the editor decided to reject. Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow. Desk rejected after a week with no comments. I then spent 2+ months revising, only to be rejected (after another two months), no new reports, but detailed comments from the editor. Pretty bad experience. Environment, Development, and Sustainability. Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. As a theoretical contribution, it is not sufficient for Economics Letters. Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. 2 rounds of r&r. topics should probably be closely related to banking. [2] [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors . So unprofessional and shameful. writing? 2 rejects, 1 R&R. 1.5 weeks overall, Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics. Fast process and 2 helpful ref. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO) I am not in a club, whatever it is.). 2 very good reports and one poor report. editing team is real class act. Copied and pasted the comments, some of which were not even relevant for the current version of the the paper. Unfortunately paper was assigned to handling editor who was on study leave. Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. After 10 months waiting, I had a revise and resubmit decision. A very pleasant experience after 5 rounds of really bad reviews. This journal still has the word economics in its tile, please stop asking clueless marketing types to referee! Too slow for a short paper, AE spent 4+ months to write very short and useless report. The comments were not helpful, but at least I know that the editor has a strong bias towards the method. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. Rejected within two weeks. good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. editor read the paper and decided to give it an r&r. Also, did not bother to understand the theoretical contribution. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. Why don't black people open carry and call it 2nd amendment rights? The editor decided to reject, I am not in the club. Homepage; Revision took about 1 week, one of the reviewers requested additional data/info about the methods used. Brief comment from the editor. The editor informed us that the contribution of the paper was not high enough for this journal although the topic has been examined in the past by other papers in this Journal. Comical journal. Woman completes quintessentially English mission to eat 244 scones across U.K. Three poor reports. Referees ok, not great. Very constructive and useful for revisions. Overall good experience. Excellent and detailed report, fair decision. The referee did not read the first sentence of the paper and was not familiar with the literature. referee and AE comments, OK at best. Two referee reviews. Ultimately fair. Very good reports and editor was clear about what were most important points to improve in the revision. Desk rejected within 2 days. Useful reports, good summary by editor. Editor rejected because paper topic (public finance) is not what tey are currently looking for. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. That was also a very fast and good experience, though not the outcome I had hoped. The reason given was something along the lines of well we can't read everything. This journal is a bit hell to make it attractive to authors in order to get their money easily. On the whole very good experience. 1 report from a senior researcher, who thinks that our paper is a fine exercise but suits field journal better. Due to a "typographical error" in sending me an email, I had to wait an extra month (and after I emailed asking for a status update) to learn of the rejection - wasting time I could have spent submitting it to another journal. Ph.D. Desk rejection after three days. Showed as "awaiting editor assignment" for three months, then a desk reject. The editor does not respond to emails. Desk reject in two days for not being general enough, $132 fee not refunded. 2 detailed comments from referees. So not good but frankly much better than other journals. A complete discrage. Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. One useful report and the other less so. Good experience overall. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Didn't refund the submission fee. However, my paper is abotu China and Institutions, two things strongly encouragede according to their mission statement. Editor should have told him to take a hike much earlier, especially when other refs suggested accept. The paper was not a good fit as it did not he approach does not engage the distinctive public choice literature. Rejected with one referee report in just under a month. Not because of the decision but due the letter content. Friendly email from editor, interesting reports from referees. I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. Rejected a letter with one referee report but overall experience was good: about 6 weeks, comments sensible will try to implement. One referee not only did not read the paper but criticized something the paper does not do at all! Encouraging words from editor, good experience. Editor was a little bit lazy as it took him two months after receiving the ref report to answer. 3 weeks for a desk reject. Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. Only one report. Please add AERi to the combo box. 3 weeks. Probably just a grad student who could only understand calculations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Close callEditor gave the benefit-of-a-doubt and requested revisions, one good referee, the other not very good, helpful editor, overall, pretty smooth process (always easier to say when the paper ends up being published). Comments were meant for another paper. Ona day later they reected it with a one sentence crappy referee report. one of the reports was literaly 3 sentences. The editor said that enjoyed the paper very much but the contributon is not sufficiently broad for a general interest journal as JHR and fits better into a labour journal. The editor, Richard Rogerson, is very careful and handles the paper in a timely manner. He suggested a general interest journal. Felt somewhat subjective. Two solid referee reports. Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. Dest rejected in three days. Very long process. Not very impressed. Pretty efficient turnaround. I'd submit there again in the future. Unbelievably fast and helpful. Expected a lot better from this journal. But first response took a whole year. Very useful comments. 2 minutes passed between receiving editor name an receiving desk rejection. Saying that the topic is not general enough. After revision was done the AE decided to reject without sending to referees! Comments were helpful. Suggested different journals, very efficient. Three weeks for a desk reject. Very good experience all around. Unbelieveble how fast some journals work!!!!! Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. This journal is a joke. One excellent referee report, one terrible. Good experience. Really good advice from journal editor and 2 good reports. Paper was accepted in 1 month after the submission. The paper was accepted few days after the revised version has been submitted. It is not very clear why it got rejected at the end (I guess referees recommended rejection but thsi was not stated in their reports so it coudl have been the editor who thought it was difficut to get published given the work needed). Almost zero substantive comments on the technical part and not surprising that it was sloppy handling given that it was Pop-Eliches who was the co-editor.
Port Adelaide Magistrates Court Listings,
Jackie Bird First Husband,
Bricks Pizza Nutrition,
Ex Qpr Players Still Playing,
Articles E