Pretty bad experience. said it was a matter of fit. Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. Completely useless reports from referees/editor not know the methodology involved. The paper was under minor revisions. Quick, very good feedback. very good experience and fast acceptance after addressing referees' comments. Decent reports. Although the suggested changes would have made the paper way too long for an EL pub. Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. Quick desk reject (3 days). Editor provided quick and fair comments why the paper is not suitable for the journal. Outcome was positive in the end, but I had to follow some nonsense instructions from the referees and the editor. This journal has published MANY papers using these methods and policy makers regularly fund these methods. Was not worth waiting that long (this is an understatement). Fairly standard rejection letter, not general enough. Mark Watson was the editor. fair and efficient process. 9 month for two reports. 1 month to wait for a desk reject is too long. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. desk reject after 9 days - reason: editor feels not suitable for publication. Advisors: Raquel Fernndez, Martin Rotemberg, Elena Manresa. Much better than overal reputation of journal. I didn't expect an accept here, but I def did not expect to be rejected on the grounds of such poor review reports. Generally not 5-star experience but worth submitting there if your paper is relevant. Meaningless reviews. Editor was our de facto 2nd referee. Less than 24 hours.Rogert J. Barro was the editor. Less than insightful comments by an editor clearly hastily read the paper. Horrible! Revision accepted for publication in one week. Good editing process. One ref decided to the opportunity to pimp their own working paper. One very good referee report that helps improve the quality of the paper. Desk reject within a 10 day but editor provided a short 'referee' report mentioning five issues. So unprofessional and shameful. Two rounds of R&R, final acceptance after second round within 5 days. smooth in general. desk rejection because it is not a good fit and i am asked to send it to an economic journal --- while i mainly discussed with a very nice sociologist when writing this paper. Also sent some emails to the editors but have no replies. Finance Job Rumors (489,506) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,795) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,021) China Job Market (103,531) Industry Rumors (40,351) 2 referees clearly read the paper and made some good and insightful comments. A bit long for a short paper, comments were fair and detailed although they pointed the way to an R&R rather than rejection. very rigorous comments. Mildly positive referees but reject nonetheless. Economics Job Market Threads. Fair process overall. Even though my paper was rejected, they will be useful to improve the paper prior to resubmission to another journal. Click here for more information. Constructive and very specific. Suggested different journals, very efficient. Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response. The other was much more careful. The reports were good and helpful. One reviewer was ok after the first R&R. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. One rubbish review from a referee who had no idea what the paper was about. Average time between rounds of R&R (months), EJMR | Job Market | Candidates | Conferences | Journals | Night Mode | Privacy | Contact. Excellent Experience. Okay referee reports. I must say second reviewer report was 1 and a half line and in my view it is the most unscientific report I have ever seen. Editor was polite. econjobrumors.com Top Marketing Channels. Would send here again. The report that was on fence did not understand some of the points made in the paper, as his biggest concern was addressed in the introduction itself. Editor rejected. Editor said he is sorry for the wait still waiting for the outcome of the second round. Very smooth process. So do keep an eye on the paper and cotnact the editor if necessary. Argued lack of fit, dispite publishing a paper on the subject a few months ago, one very short useless report in seven months, 5 months + 125USD for a referee rejection with a report of about 21 lines.SHAME. Associate editors are very professional. Katz wrote his usual bs about my fascinating paper. useless report from "expert" regurgitating my explicitly stated caveats, B.E. Second was uninformative. One of the best run journals in macro. I expected something more serious from a journal with such a high submission fee. Stay away from this journal if you do not have a connection from inside. 1 serious person pushing his method. Good experience, strong feedback. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. It seems like one of the reviewers do not even read my paper.The suggestions are nonsense. Seems largely like the referee just didn't like it and the editor wanted there to be more significant results (publication bias at its best). Two are helpful, one is less useful. 2 months, the article is still under internal review DPR had my manuscript for over a year, and never even got it under review. Quality of editing going down. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. A bit long but very helpful referee report. One useless report, but the other one is decent. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. 1 report suggesting to cite the Editor's work and speaking about things outside of the scope of the paper. 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. Also useful comments from the editor. two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. Pretty average speed compared to other journals. 3 reports. Didn't make the paper better at all. It's going to be most accurate for economics, political science, public policy & other professional schools. 1 really excellent, positive report. One excellent report, one mediocre report. Not submitting again to this journal. 2 pretty decent referee reports.Of course one said "the quality of the model and empirical evidence is below the standards for a journal like the QJE. Do not send a paper to BE JM, Very bad experience. While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. Bad report, condescending. Process lasted one year with nontransparent, contradictory review process. Desk rejected within 7 days. HUMAN HELP: The Placement Chair for the 2022-2023 academic year is Professor Ben Handel, handel@berkeley.edu. In really sped things up. First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. To avoid. This Rumors site allows only a maximum of 12 months from submission to decision. Desk rejected in less than one month. I was very grateful despite the rejection. Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. Desk rejected in 1 week. 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. European Review of Agricultural Economics. Super fast process than I had expected. Lost more than 6 months for nothing. Editor wrote half a page and was polite. One good report (weak r&r). Took 6 months for first reply (ref reject); 1 referee critical but fair, the other one very critical but didn't read the paper carefully. AEA-Committee on the Job Market; Cawley, John, A Guide and Advice for Economists on the U. S. Junior Academic Job Market, 2018-19 edition Johannes Pfiefer maintains a catalog of job market tip pages and resources Resources for applying to government positions - L&S Career Site for Govt, Policy, International Affairs, writing a . solution? Bad Experience. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. 9 days. The low-quality report won out Reject with two solid reports. The closures follow the consequences of the 2020 BLM-Antifa riots that . Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. Lengthy, in-depth reports. Worst experience I have ever had. possible that the editor reviewed it himself, but was a fairly straightforward accept, trivial revisions only. Worst experience ever. Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. Rejection without arguments/referee report. Reasonable response. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. less than 2 weeks, recommended field journal. One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. no comments given. Fast and fair. The policy of the journal is to let each author appoint the referees, which improves speed on one hand but generates citation groups on the other hand. Some useful comments from his friend. In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. No reports provided, but editor made brief helpful comments. 3 sentences total, six months. interesting and polite reports. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. Worst experience, A very very slow journal. After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. 2 months with almost no answer, although the journal claims desk rejections are within days. Really unprofessional. Two horribly low quality reports. Was a longshot. Placement Officer: Professor Stefania Garetto, garettos@bu.edu, (617) 358-5887. Editor picked reasonable comments, asked to take into account suggestions, accepted the paper after the referees agreed that what I did is reasonable. Desk rejection within two weeks. One week desk rejection with form letter. The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. Split decision. Admittedly, they must receive a lot of submissions, but that does not excuse this. Available November 2022 for positions in Summer/Fall 2023. I dont care whether you want to increase citations and impact factor fo your journal. 4 months for ref. Rather uninformative feedback: feeling that it is not suitable for publication and unlikely to be favorably reviewed. We may have been aiming too high. At first the handling editor informed us that the paper is sent for peer review. Three mediocre reports. Received 2 very nice and 1 okay-ish report. WE got 3 tough and long referee reports. Not being up to claimed "high-speed dissemination" standards. Desk rejected in a month. Editor read the paper and deskrejected in less than a week. Turns out that means he's following the Schwert model: don't read the paper, regurgitate the reviewer's comments in the decision letter. It took 4 months to get the reviews, but the reviews were excellent. Not big enough contribution. Good experience, Revision accepted by editor within two days after re-submission. Comments from Larry very helpful. Horrible experience. 3 reports. I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided. Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data. Extremely fast and thoughtful. Bad to useless reports after a longish delay. Most horrible and bizarre referee reports. 9 months for 1 2-page referee report. Mostly generic comments. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. No evidence that the editor read even the abstract. High quality, detailed ref. After 4 months it remained Under review and these comments I get from the Reviewer: "You have a good idea. Fair and quick process. Of these, 90 graduates (72%) chose positions at academic institutions and 38 graduates (27%) chose non-academic . It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. Great judgment. In hindsight, submitted the paper too prematurely. It would be a positive experience if submission were free. Very efficient; referee reports are of pretty high quality. two referee reports. The process was very fast. Editor was very kind. Good experience, even though a reject. After two interventions got 1 ridiculous report. Bad process. 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful). Useful and encouraging comments from referees, who appeared very interested in improving the paper and offering helpful suggestions to do so. Editor took issue with a methodological aspect of the paper and rejected. Contribution too small. Avoid this journal by any means. Good experience overall, took more than 1 year to get one referee report. The new editors did a good job, Just a joke, 2 years of "under review" for nothing, two useful comments with one minor, another some work, Good comments, nice time management from the editor, efficient process. 1 was more positive and ref. Readers familiar with the operation of the market can proceeddirectlytothe"data"subsectionbelow. The editors are public health monkeys. He only mentioned that I failed to mention a lot of papers who were all by the same person. 2 reports and 2 rounds. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. the comment above was for another journals. Editor makes no attempt to reconcile conflicting reports or, One good referee report. Referee claims no revisements were made after substantial revisements were made and detailed. Referee really helped me to improve this paper with a great report. Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help. The editor (George Weebly) made inconsistent statements that did not match with the statments in the paper or from the refrees.The referees made good comments. The co-editor gave very specific, though difficult requests for the revision. Efficient. Hence, terrible. Not interested in the topic, acceptable decision. One referee kept claiming one thing was wrong. Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. paper.? Reports were very positive, it took us 12 weeks to resubmit. Professional editor. Not signed by any specific editor, so not even sure who handled the manuscript. Frustrating. Reasonably quick. After two rounds all the referee agreed to publish the paper. Home Help Search Welcome Guest. Katz rejected in two hours with comments that seemed to be written for some other paper. Terrible referee report referee made contradictory statements and econometric mistakes in report. Quite fast luckily. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. Tough but fair referee reports. A fairly high quality report, useful, within 24 days. Would submit again. Desk rejection by QJE does not convey the quality of the paper. Standard comments, paper's topic just not good enough. Very low quality report. The shitty one referred to multiple papers in very low ranked journals authored by the same set of authors. Two solid referee reports. 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. 3 years for a desk rejection, after sending them at least 6 emails and filing a complain with the publisher. Overall, I was very pleased with the process. four reports. Pathetic Three reports, one good report the other two average. Ignored reputation of this journal being a small closed network (mostly WB) journal. One report was not very helpful. Maybe small sample made it untouchable? Job Market. Not only is it accepted, but it also becomes a much better paper now. A very positive experience for a filler publication. Both referees were a bit too negative, but the reports were useful. Editor told us to what extent the comment should be addressed. Quick (10 days), but useless. Multiple inquiries with a response: "once the reviews are completed, the editor will make a decision". good reports. I am surprised no R&R. Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud. Overall, very good experience. Also, reviewers are non-economists, providing some real WTF comments. Interesting use of a referee's time. The co-editor was very efficient and apparently read the paper. It took 7 months until the JORS provided two referee reports of poor quality (one refere suggested to replace GMM with FE regression because it is impossible to solve endogeneity completely). -> Toilet. The other reviewer I suspect of being a graduate student with not so good comments. This journal is a joke. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). Very good experience. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. Demanding but helpful referee reports. editor read the paper and decided to give it an r&r. Worst experience so far in my career. 2 referee reports: 1 very detailed recommending revisions; other useless. I was surprised these two letters resulted in the overall reject. The editor was Christian Pop-Eliches. Pleasantly surprised by the quality of referee report. Two month later it is rejected and get two referee reports (fair enough there). The Editor sugested the JIE. Excellent and rapid process, with clear comments and instructions from referees and editor. rejected after 5 months of 'reviews completed'. Invited to revise and resubmit the paper. contribution is not enough. Editor read the paper and outlined clear (and fair) reasons for rejection. Both read, understood and gave a few comments. Referee comments generally useful and positive, but guest editor made desicsion to reject given preferences - fair enough really. "Growing by the Masses: Revisiting the Link between Firm Size and Market . Referee wrote a short report with easily implementable suggestions, suggesting revision. Received first reply after 7 weeks. With editor for 1.5 month. Insightful and constructive comments. Reasonable comments from referees. Worst. Editor was very reasonable. Second ref put thought into it but was of a heterodox stripe that I'm not. Horrible experience. 19 Jul 2023. Very good experience; desk reject with highly valuable and fair comments by the co-editor within 10 days. This journal is a scam. Decent experience; overall fast, fair and constructive. 3 months for a desk rejection - no need to comment 4 months until desk reject. We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. Two referees were lukewarm but couldn't really point out too much that was wrong. The editor Adonis Yatchew was very helpfull and efficient. very good comments. The results just didn't fit their priors. In a word, this is not a serious journal. and then took another seven months. 2 positive. 100 USD for such VALUABLE suggestion. Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor. I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. Rejected within 4 days with a decent explanation. It takes the editor a long time to respond but the comments are very helpful. Not so many comments; recommended two very good field journals. Very high quality referee report. 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. Total 6 months. The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it. Costas Meghir responses all submissions. **** this journal. Editor mentioned delay is mainly the result of needing to get a second editorial assessment which suggested this paper's arguments are more likely to find a responsive audience in a different journal. 84 W Santa Clara Street, Suite 770, San Jose, CA 95113. Very fast process. Job Market Paper: Local Polynomial Estimation of Time-Varying Parameters in GMM. Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. Contribution not general enough suggests Review of Economics and Statistics. 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. Don't think they even bothered reading the first page. (However, because there was only one referee, whose specialty aligned with only part of the paper, he/she barely attempted to comment on much of the paper, perhaps to its detriment.). Good report with relevant comments which will be useful if publication of this study is pursued further. Expected much better from this journal. Odd journal but overall pleased with the result if not every part of the process. Good report. Desk rejection in 6 minutes with a "pretended" letter, which could be used for any paper. Poor quality reports. One refree report who made very useful comments that helped significantly improve the paper. Your paper is not fit for public choice try with public economics. They pointed out several issues of my paper, but they are either wrong or something that can be easily fixed. Over the past six years, the department has placed a total of 128 graduates in academic, research, and government jobs. The editor read the paper and provided useful advice on how to improve it. Fast turnaround. Such a waste of my valuable time. in JF in the area). one referee suggested revision, one rejection, editor followed the rejection; good reports, suggestions improved the paper, Two revisions but rejected by editor, fast and fair comments, One accept with min comments, one said ok but many points/revisions, one reject, editor said too large a revision without guarantee for accept, 1 report recommended to publish, 1 pointed out minor points. Otherwise, efficient process, decent reports. The editor was not helpful at all. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). They clearly help the author to improve their paper instead of rejecting it without trying to extract the best. Overall, very happy with the process. 20 months to acceptance since first submission. All of them are much speedier and you will actually get helpful comments that will improve your paper. Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. So-so report. The referee seemed to be familiar with the broad topic of the special issue, but not with the specific subject the paper dealt with (e.g. The third referee recommended acceptance, but the editor rejected. Said the contribution was too small, which I accept. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. Fast process and 2 helpful ref. The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. Incredibly insulting rejection that made it clear the referee had not read past the first 2 pages of the paper. 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. Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. After three months, I received an email from the editor that he still hasn't received the referee report, so he assumed the referee didn't like the paper and therefore he rejects it. Great experience. One referee seemed inexperienced and little informative comments. Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. ), Vienna University of Economics and Business, Ceccarelli (Zurich/Maastricht), Pitkjrvi (Aalto), Assistant Professor in Labor, Migration, and Racial Capitalism, Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario), Gallant (Toronto), Sullivan (Yale), Cui (UPenn), Choi (Wisconsin-Madison), Kahou (UBC), Hentall-MacCuish (UCL), Babalievsky (minnesota), Moszkowski (Harvard), Hong (Wisconsin-Madison), Pan (UT Austin), McCrary (UPenn), Gutierrez (University of Chicago), Kwon (Cornell), Zillessen (Oxford), Ba (UPenn), Assistant, Advanced Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor of Economics, E0 -- General F3 -- International Finance F4 -- Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Fin. Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. Rejected based on 1 helpful referee report. The referee reports were good. Two thoughtful refs, one clueless. several days. The reviewer was excellent, made the paper much better with his/her comments. Online in 2 months. I waited for seven months, only to receive one superficial referee report. The contribution of the paper is not suficient for the EJ. Obviously, being turned down after a two-year long process and a very extensive revision is bad for a young author. [2] [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors . 2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. Too slow for a short paper, AE spent 4+ months to write very short and useless report. The other `meh'. Despite perceptions they do desk reject. Good experience, worth the 100$ :). 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. Ref reports were okay. The editor (Midrigan) collects three reports within 75 days. One excellent referee report, and one decent one. Very fast process but no comment from the Associate Editor. Two referee reports, one critical, one encouraging. As we addressed all issues in between and it better fitted EL, it was accepted without revision. Extremely long wait at this journal for comments. The comment by the editor in charge was helpful. Desk reject after 1 month. One very good referee report out of three. Excellent reports. Clear editor had read the paper, helpful comments. Went downstairs for some snack. Overall good experience. AE didn't provide comments which is odd. It was a long process but the editor and referees were genuinely helpful. Would submit again. Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. One week to accept. Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. Rapid desk rejection, with fair comments and advice from editor. Not worth the time wasted. Very bad experience. Basically useless, a waste of time. Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. 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. Editor (Collins) might read the paper, but did not say much. Some decent comments nevertheless. Contacting the editor twice did not result in speeding up the process (but we received at least a reply). Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. The Editor does appologize on the long delay saying one referee did not provide the report. "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". Resubmitted and then conditional accepted within a week. Kinda pissed. Quick response from referees and editor. One ref suggested I send it to JPE before trying places like EJ or ReStat. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. Considering withdrawing. My paper was much of empirical. My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! Efficient. One where the only material comment has a grammatical error that makes understanding it difficult? View Board. Editor slept on the paper's submission history and the reviewer's dishonesty. Referees ok, not great. Outrageously poor process. Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days. We asked to see the reports but the editor did not send them. Recently Announced. Some fair comments. One referee was OK with almost no comments. Excellent, useful comments by editor, but report was not helpful (as correctly noted by editor) and 5.5 months is a long time for one report. Considered waste of time here. Very pleasant experience. However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. Working on my R&R now. Desk rejected as outside the scope of the journal. Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines). One was thoughtful report, pointed to at least one direction we can improve. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. Will never submit here. The contribution of the paper as it stands to be insu cient for publication in The Econometrics Journal. The editor rejected the manuscript without any useful comments. the job market for junior economists. 1 great, 1 so so, 1 absolutely trash (the referee only argued on the reliability of the benchmark case, which is a well established result in the literature!!!). Would submit here again. Fair decision. Rather slow desk reject. Still not a fan of this journal. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. One positive review, one negative, referee took the side of the negative.
Why Did Remy Hii Leave Harrow,
Lawrence Taylor Salary,
Articles E
econ job market rumors wikiLeave a reply