Hence, terrible. No surprising, but referee report was sloppy and incorrect. Response time was decent. Efficient handling by editor. Otherwise, efficient process, decent reports. The comments from the editor are also disappointing: his main suggestion is to send our 7,500 words paper to economics letters. My worst experience ever. Decent referee reports. One high quality report. Helpful and fair referee reports. R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. Will never submit again. Reason given: "not general enough." Also sent some emails to the editors but have no replies. Poor quality reports. Submitted August 14, 2015. Not helpful in any way. I am asked to send to another journal because the paper is not a good fit, the editor is very nice, professional and efficient. Paper denounced an error on widely cited paper (unfairly comparing bootstrap vs asypmtotic theory with a nonpivot statistic!). One month later received rejection with a low quality review. Helpful reports and suggestions by the editor. Excellent handling. Economics, Tenured/Tenure-track Advertiser: Various departments, New York University Shanghai Field(s) of specialization: Econometrics - Microeconomics Finance Job Rumors (489,493) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,790) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,019) China Job Market (103,530) Industry Rumors (40,349) Helpful comments received from reviewers. inquiry after 6 month: "several referees invited but still no reports", rejected after 9 month: "sent the paper to four reviewers but only received two reports". Also one referee was clueless and did not read the paper. Good experience. did not refund the submission fee. Both reports were very shorts (one was just a few lines). Faculty of Economics Austin . Bad experience overall. Took almost 3 months for the first reports. Editor clearly read the paper, sent a long email telling me how much he liked it but that it would likely run into trouble with referees. Pretty clear that whoever desk rejected didn't even read (or couldn't understand) the paper. Job Market. The other one was less so. Some fair comments which are already addressed in the paper but no one paid attention to that Quick and reasonable. At least the turnaround was quick. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). The referee told us to delete the literature review. $100 fee refunded. Rejected, but editor and referees were fair. Despite being so tough, all comments were fair and refs wrote great reports that dramatically improved the paper. Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade, Fair and efficient process. Reasonable comments from referees. Excellent editor, balanced referees and good timing. Took a long time for first response which suggested feasible changes and asked for a revised submission. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. Reject with two referee reports, one gives constructive comments, one rejects with half a page report, saying the paper is not for a general readership. 1 referee report after 1 year, referee did not like the idea, editor Pok-sang Lam. Bugaga! The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. Katz rejected in less than 24 hours with some comments. One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. No response. OK comments from referee. Really unprofessional. Quick responds. "Scope a bit too narrow" for Economica. After one round of revision, two of the three reviewers accepted the paper and one requested at best minor revision. One referee, although clearly in favour of publication, asked a good deal of revisions and it took us 4 motnhs to respond so most of the delay may have been our fault. Worst. Economist 64dd. Law School. R&R, took forever, reports mentioned but not provided, not responsive to emails. Anyway, the editor letter mentiones out of scope, and blaims it on our lack of (maybe interest in ?) Referee reject without any comments after 14 months of chasing the journal. Overall positive experience. Rejected by an Associate Editor, who actually read the paper, got the main idea clearly, and wrote a 2 full-page report with reasoning why this is not for JET and what journal outlets might be considered. Mediocre assessment from referee with some helpful suggestions. Avoid him. Received two referee reports and a review from the associate editor within two months of initial submission. Extremely slow journal and not well managed journal. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!! Sent it to EL on Christmas Eve, got the desk reject from Gomez right after Christmas on 26th for not enough contributions. Awful experience. Had a paper published there recently. Ona day later they reected it with a one sentence crappy referee report. Harold Cole was excellent as editor. as stated ("within 24 hours") we got an editorial reject claiming the lack of interest for a broad audience. fluent ?in? 2 referees clearly read the paper and made some good and insightful comments. Articles/sites of interest for students on the Job Market. Extremely slow journal! To be fair, some of the editors comments were sharp. Associate editor rejected on poor grounds. The editor rejected based on flimsy reasons. Think about submitting again. Home Help Search Welcome Guest. SIX MONTHS for a desk reject. 1 very useful report and associate editor comments. The current reality of the economics job market is this. Six months to respond. Not for the faint-hearted. very well-run journal, Very thoughtful referee reports with clear suggestions for improvement, as well as recommendations from the co-editor for better suited journals, editor read the paper and rejected with some useful comments. more months, before rejection based on superficial comments. Theory in one field sent to AE in another field doing empirics. Slightly disappointing. Nice experience, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. It seems from this website that this in not uncommon for this journal. Would submit here again. Much better than plain vanilla Economics Letters. Referees didnt understand shape of indifference curves, confused standard errors for standard deviations, ignored figures in main text while misinterpreting figures from the appendix. Arbitrary decision without sending it to refs by incompetent editor. Split reports but very clear advice from editor. Two referee reports: one decent, one poor. Although the paper got accepted, the quality of the comments and the editor's comments were beyond laughable and actually really make me regret having it sent there but it is too late. Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject. One useful report out of three. Brief comments from the editor. The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. The other reviewer raised some minor issues. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. possible that the editor reviewed it himself, but was a fairly straightforward accept, trivial revisions only. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. One ref decided to the opportunity to pimp their own working paper. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. Recommend field journals, Useful letter from the editor Dirk Krueger (aprox. 2 weeks to desk reject. Tough revisions, but very fair. Fast but shallow. Fair decision. (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.). 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit. 150$ is quite a lot of money. WD has become a true shitshow. Very kind letter from the editor. Desk reject would have been more efficient, They editors are very efficient. Couldn;t get second referee so editor said he read carefully himself. He had nothing but praise for it and offered good suggestions. Mentioned but did not provide reports, just asked for a more policy oriented conclusion, unresponsive to emails. it was in 2016. Lazy report. Very disappointing to have no word on a paper that got R&R with minor revisions in a similar ranked journal half a year later, Desk rejection after three months, editor apologized for delay, Desk accepted, sent to R&R for less than a month. Withdrew my paper after 8 months of no contact from Editor, referee, etc. One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. Fantastic journal. Barro says not sufficiently general interest, and advises to try a field journal instead. very comprehensive report. Editor noted that paper of an associate editor was not cited but did not mention the name of the paper. Professional editor. reports. Desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. Editor then said with a quick/thorough response and no need to go back to refs. Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. Single report. Crappy reports. Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. What can i say more? Great experience. I understand there is variability in this process, but it was a terrible experience. The AEA provides a guide to the job market process created by John Cawley. He suggests AER Insights and top field journals. You have to earn it! The editor (Sushanta Mallick) rejected it by 'just by looking at the descriptive statistics' (the original words from the decision letter). Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Fast and clean. Terrible referee report referee made contradictory statements and econometric mistakes in report. Extremely disappointed. Overall, paper first sent in November and accepted in next August! Some of the most useful and thorough referee reports I've gotten. Very efficient process with explicit timeline. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. I suspect a tight club. Will never submit unless the editor is changed to an economist, Referees did not put much efforts. After 6 months I got an extremely low quality report; looked like the reviewer had no idea about the paper or even the field in general. Amazing experience. Ultimately, Editor rejected as felt it was not general purpose enough. Submitted more than 2 months, still shown the status as "under ADM", 5 months first RR, 5 months second RR, 2 weeks final acceptance. Accepted after two rounds of revisions. Rare experience where every round made paper much better. Journal of International Money and Finance. Good communication and seemed very efficient. one so-so report and one excellent report, Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics. After that Editor took 2 months to answer positively to my R&R. An associate editor left some comments, which showed that they read at least some of the paper. Two very good reports, one probably written by the editor. The paper is mostly empirical and they asked for massive extension of the dataset. One very good review, two quite missed points. One very thorough that discussed on every paper point.Good experience, out of scope for this journal, although the most cited paper in this journal also addresses the same research problem, Bad experience. Some reasons given. The editor said some good words but also said he could not turn over the recommendation. One excellent report, one mediocre report. overall v good experience. Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper, no longer a serious all purpose journal imho; "desk reject" after 6 mos on the basis of style in the abstract, Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded, One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end, Terrible experience. On the whole very good experience. "Thank you for your paper. Editors keep delaying despite returned reports, seems to be a pattern with this journal. In anyway, you need to be very careful when responding with him, he can easily upset you with a rejection. Overall good experience. that ?no? Editor was Nielsen. ", 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. If you are in a hurry or need one to fill you CV, then choose it.. editor very helpful. One was favorable, the other was on the fence. They pointed out several issues of my paper, but they are either wrong or something that can be easily fixed. The referee was clearly trying to protect his own paper on a related topic; half of the bullet points referred to that paper. Will submit again.. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. Desk rejected with 1 sentence after 2 months. No reply yet. 3 months for conference decision and 2 months of journal decision. If this journal wants to publish high quality papers, it needs to pick someone better than Joerg Baten who actually reads the papers before he accepts/rejects, etc. Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. It took 3 weeks to get a desk reject letter. Desk reject in 1 week. Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. be viewed as too specific. 2 months after first submission of manuscript. Slightly more informative than a desk rejection. Finally, I have now wothdrawn my paper. Okay referee reports. Three rounds. Flores, Jairo. Fast. Super standard rejection letter from Olivier Coibion, no advice whatsoever Two months to a desk reject, with zero information from the editor's response. Six weeks for response. 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. The associate editor however provided some useful comments which helped us improve the paper. The editor agrees with the latter statement but adds "unless it's great. Quickly accepted after the revisions were completed. Terrible experience - slow and unjustified decision. The journal is a joke! Desk rejection with no comments in 3 weeks. desk reject, but editor basically provided a referee report, desk reject - generic letter from editor who did not like the topic. KG was DE in finance. The editor decided major revision. one nasty and rudely written report with inaccuracies as well, one cited lack of fit. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. Search by field of study. Cool editor. bargaining? All excellent reports, and good suggestions from the co-editor about what to focus on and where to send next. It was almost like somebody pickpocketed and got my $600, had to pay $100 instead of the usual submission fee. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. Complained. One extremely thorough and helpful report, one shorter but still raising valid points. Article was rejected but the comments were generally helpful and thoughtful. major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). The editor did not read the paper and just sided with the hostile referee. Fair and constructive comments. Focus too narrow for a general interest journal. Such a waste of my valuable time. Good reports. 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. An extremely meager, short, embarassing, useless report. Post an advertisement. Both read, understood and gave a few comments. The paper was under minor revisions. Poor report! Desk rejected after 7 weeks. I did what was asked, and the revised paper was accepted by the editor after one week. 3rd review was pending. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. Suggested a field journal, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. happy with outcome. Reports were not fair but at least fast response. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. Good Experience. The editor's comments are not informative. Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda. Poor / no justification for decision. cooperative? ref asks more robustness check. Good referee reports. All suggest major revision and change of approach. within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Overall efficient and fair but demanding process. Basically if you don't make everyone happy on the first round you stand no chance at this journal. Two useful reports. It took a long time to hear back from the first round. We'll see. Negative report is pretty bad. One good referee report, one referee who had no idea. Submission is waste of time. Overall, the reports were good so no complains. 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. one ok report, one very hostile. Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. Best experience in my long career (20+ years, 10+ top publications). However we had make all of the referee's suggestions and the outcome was not positive. Sadly, no mention of why paper was rejected (only minor issues raised). Editor just pointed at reports and made no obvious effort to think about the paper. Waited 13 months to two mildly positive reports. it.?I? Referee comments greatly improved the paper, editor was awesome. Assistant Professor of Economics Columbia University Visiting Research Associate (2022-23) BFI at the University of Chicago Research Network Affiliate CESifo Network Links: Cognition and Decision Lab DRIPs Curriculum Vitae Google Scholar Contact: ha2475@columbia.edu . The university is also very well-known for its intellectual atmosphere and abundance of creativ. Very efficient process. good referee reports (1 yes, 2 no). Felt somewhat subjective. Down side: reports are quite short: 1 paragraph each. 1 useless report, and second was useful report. Resubmitted after 3+ months of work, but replies to referees went lost and paper got rejected. This page collects information about the academic mathematics job market: positions, short lists, offers, acceptances, etc. Editor (Voth) was polite but did not say much. Job Market. but i think it is an important one that should be considered a bonafide econ journal. However, I take as it was me not being able to pass the make the point I wanted. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. Eight months is a long wait though. Accepted version was greatly improved. 2 referee reports: first one, r&r; second one, reject and resubmit. Overall horrifying experience. Very fast and professional referee reports. Desk reject - research objectives and empirical methods questioned, paper referred to field journal. Excellent ref report. Time to accept less than 1 year. Editor was respectful and not full of himself. The paper is now much stronger. The decision is quite fair and briefly justified. Quick desk rejection. Will submit again. Good experience overall. Bad journal. Fair referee reports, ref. best submission experience. Well argued rejection with helpful comments. It seems that the referee did not read the paper just pinpointed assumptions he did not like to reject. It took too long, I do not know if I would submit there again. way too long for a "standard" rejection. Kinda pissed. After revision was done the AE decided to reject without sending to referees! Quite annoyed at this journal - AE provided verbatim the referee rejection from another submission journal from three months prior. Otherwise fine. In any case, the paper is not a good match for the JIE, both because it is highly technical and (more importantly) because it is more of a trade theory paper than an IO paper. The dynamic is well known and its implications are rather straightforward in this context. Kind and informed letter from editor. Much better than overal reputation of journal. So do keep an eye on the paper and cotnact the editor if necessary. I am not in a club, whatever it is.). Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. Poor, self serving. relatively fast process and referee helped to improve the papers. Lots of minor standardized formating requests, then a gap of 10 weeks to get accepted. 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. Just didn't seem to believe paper, but without any really good reason.

Julian De Laurentiis Father, Daniil Kvyat Kelly Piquet Baby, La Mujer Encorvada Hija De Abraham, O1 Visa Approval Rate 2021, Independent Bookmakers Ireland, Articles E