One very good and one very weak report. Got response approx. Ended up being a better paper. Generic rejection letter from the editor arguing lack of fit. I only regret not withdrawing this. For a short paper, it took quite a longtime for deskreject without a single sentence relating to the paper. Will submit again in the future! Very efficient process, paper improved with referee comments. Environment, Development, and Sustainability. The editor emailed me after 6 days and said he read and liked the paper. great reviews and useful comments for ref, only 1 referee report 3 sentences long by reviewer who did not read the paper, Good reports but very slow to get a rejection. Beyond the scope of the journal. He/she also asked unrelated information such as why the market offer two similar contracts, which is not the scope of the study. Rejected in 24 hrs, no reason given. Very efficient process. A very pleasant experience after 5 rounds of really bad reviews. Fair decision. Deemed too narrow for the journal. Brief, ignorant, editor's letter. Readers familiar with the operation of the market can proceeddirectlytothe"data"subsectionbelow. A second round of minor revision was requested. One seems to be written by a first-year bachelor student. Rejection after 3 days. Almost one year later from submission, have no answer about my paper. Single-blind review system for a 250 bucks fee. Two of them suggested a possible solution. Research Interests : Digital Platforms & Society, Regulatory Uncertainty on Digital Platforms. Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago. They also indicated that the paper was better suited to a a different journal. Development Economics, Family Economics, Gender Economics, Domestic Violence Durandard, Tho: Kellogg School of Management . Difficulties to reach the editor, but useful report and very fast decision (1 day) after submitted the revised manuscript. One very good referee report out of three. Not a great experience. Quick desk reject after less than 24 hours without comments, annoying given the submission fee. Fantastic experience. The reason was that the, Andrew Samwick rejected within 2 days, Topic is too speacialized for EL. Despite being so tough, all comments were fair and refs wrote great reports that dramatically improved the paper. Really unprofessional. Surprisingly efficient process given the other comments here on the journal. STAY AWAY from this journal! The editor (Hongbin Li) rejects because of lack of fir with the journal's mission. Lorentzen (BI Norway), Lieber (Chicago), Lyngse (Copenhagen), Ststad (PSE), Osun (Maryland), Majewska (Toulouse), Nord (EUI), Sverud (Copenhagen), Zillessen (Oxford), Carry (CREST), Airaudo (Carlos III), See https://www.economics.ku.dk/Calendar/seminars/, Shunsuke Tsuda (Brown), Catherine van der List (UBC), Victor Pouliquen (Oxford), Evgeny Yakovlev (NES), Andreas Ziegler (Amsterdam), Valerio Pieroni (UAB), Thomas Brzustowski (LSE), Assistant/Associate/Full Professor-Ag and Applied Economics, University of Georgia (Terry College of Business), Thereze (Princeton); Lee (Princeton); Geddes (Northwestern); Vitali (UCL); Crews (Chicago); Cai (Northwestern); Kang (Stanford GSB); Bodere (NYU), Bodere (NYU), Cai (Northwestern), Thereze (Princeton), AP of Economics at Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan Ross School of Business, Serna (Wisconsin), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Qiu (Penn), Geddes (Northwestern), Altmann (Oxford), Kleinman (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Kahou (UBC) Kim (Penn) Holz (Northwestern) Holz (Chicago Harris) Wang (Rochester) Arbour (Toronto) Lee (Chicago Harris) Wasser (Cornell) Robinson (UCSB), Development, Political Econ, Applied Micro, Lecturer (Assistant Professor), Senior Lecturer and/or Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Yes- some girl accepted offer then took another job, Aina (Zurich), Bertazzini (Oxford), pires (berkeley), oliveira (berkeley), schief (brown), uccioli (MIT), sartre (brown), Sartre (Brown), Bertazzini (Oxford), Uccioli (MIT), Skoda (Zurich), De Vera (CEMFI), Sui (Rochester), Aina (Zurich), Ghersengorin (PSE), Hancart (UCL), de Carvalho (UBC), Gavan (UPF), Milson (Oxford), Schneider (UZH), Vattuone (Warwick), Herstad (Chicago), von Carnap (IIES), Lorentzen (BI), Altmann (Oxford); See https://tinyurl.com/mryuahhm, Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford), Sung (Columbia), Lanteri (Duke), Hui (LSE), Nord (EUI), Cruces (UC3M), Williams (Yale), Marto (Penn), Trouvain (Michigan), Sturm (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton); Lanzani (MIT); Cai (Northwestern);Guerreiro (Northwestern); Nord (EUI); Ederer (TSE); Starck (Brown); Bellue (Mannheim); Diop (Oxford); Banchio (Stanford GSB); Pernoud (Stanford); Saxena (Harvard); Souchier (Stanford); Vitali (UCL); Sharma; Serna (Wisconsin), Wheeler (UC Berkeley), Bagga (UT Austin), Gutierrez (Chicago), Szerman (Princeton), Crews (Chicago), Nord (EUI), Peng (Penn), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), University of Rochester (Simon Business School), Arkhangelsky (CEMFI AP), Bai (Michigan AP), Pouliot (Chicago Harris AP), Chang (Yale), Cai (Northwestern), https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/index.php/index/research/seminars?dateRange=past&seriesId=0, Sarah Robinson (UC Santa Barbara), Justin Wiltshire (UC Berkeley), Katherine Rittenhouse (UC San Diego), Christopher Mills (Princeton), Eduardo Medina Cortina (UIUC), Arielle Bernhardt (Harvard), Jenya Kahn-Lang (Berkeley), Katherine Riitenhouse (UCSD), Gina Li (Stanford), Stephanie Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Flynn (MIT), Wang (Stanford), Lu (Stanford), Leombroni (Stanford), Seth (LBS), Singla (LBS), Ptashkina (UPF) Sileo (Georgetown) Gutirrez (Chicago) Chang (Yale) Shen (UCLA) Kohlhepp (UCLA) Cai (Northwestern) Morazzoni (UPF) Wong (Columbia) Carry (CREST) Nimier-David (CREST) Chen (Stanford GSB) Bodr (NYU) Tintelnot (Chicago AP) Beaman (Northwestern AP) Lamadon (Chicago AP) Kang (CMU AP), Risk and Insurance at Wisconsin School of Business, Rao (UCSD), Wiseman (Berkeley ARE), Rexer (Wharton), Giaccobasso (UCLA), Yucheng Yang (Princeton), Sofonias Korsaye (SFI), Matteo Leombroni (Stanford), Yes, 2/05/2023 according to EconTrack (who? Very professionalthe referee reports were fine but rather tough given the quality of the journal, 3 rounds, all comments addressed, rejected because 1 reviewer did not read the last version. Fairly helpful referee report. Great experience in general! Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. Fast and fair. Of these, 90 graduates (72%) chose positions at academic institutions and 38 graduates (27%) chose non-academic . He said he liked my paper and thought it was inventive. A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. R&R, took forever, reports mentioned but not provided, not responsive to emails. Competent referee reports, although one of them extremely hostile. Pointed out the problems in the model and also admitted that its difficult to take care of all those problems. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. Two referee reports; one high quality, one very low quality. The paper was accepted after the first round revision. Horrible. Submission for a special issue. 1 reviewer was clearly an expert, 2 others were less thorough than might be expected, one recommended R&R the other did not read the paper was clearly ideologically biased, the editor sided with the latter, Quick process, referees made some good comments, not a bad experience, one positive referee report, one negative referee report. No other comments. Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us. Very unprofessional. Very low quality report. Desk Reject in one week for lack of contribution. Desk/ref rejected. Worst referee report ever. Special fast-track call. Desk rejected in 25 minutes. The associate editor however provided some useful comments which helped us improve the paper. DR after one week. Some good comments from reviewers, but all focused on marginal issues. Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. After waiting for 6 months, I sent a polite email to the editor asking if the paper fell through the cracks. The comments are of bad quality and show poor knowledge of economics. two positive reports and one strongly negative report; the editor Andrew Street gave me a R&R; after I spent one month writing a 30-page response, the negative referee still argued against my paper based on his misunderstanding of my paper; the editor finally chose to reject my paper based on the comments of this referee without careful reading. I had much better experience in American Journal of Health Economics. Editor desk rejected after a couple of weeks due to lack of fit. Big lie. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. After two rounds all the referee agreed to publish the paper. Super fast review. Excellent editorial work, with very clear road-map of how to address referee concerns. very professional; some referees had good points; should have spent more time polishing the paper before submitting. Economics Job Market Rumors. Paper was internally valid-(ish) but not a big enough contribution. Passed the desk (Turner) in ten days. 1 on the fence. only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. Desk reject within two weeks. Rejected and no reason given. Not being up to claimed "high-speed dissemination" standards. possible that the editor reviewed it himself, but was a fairly straightforward accept, trivial revisions only. Editor was US-based and said that she likes the idea though! Referee really helped me to improve this paper with a great report. Review process was very efficient. Turns out that means he's following the Schwert model: don't read the paper, regurgitate the reviewer's comments in the decision letter. 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. Not very useful comments from any of them. Big lie. We were asked to collect additional data for our existing experimental treatments to increase our statistical power. Unbelievably fast and helpful. Will never submit there again. Not sure what the editor(s) are doing at this journal but whatever it is, it is not quality overseeing and editing of papers. First two reports were "not general interest enough" and didn't have much to say substantively as a result (1-2 pages). Even though my paper was rejected, they will be useful to improve the paper prior to resubmission to another journal. Editor rejected the paper based on the decision of board of editor. Excellent experience. Editor: "Far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal". Comments like "I do not understand the findings of this study" show that the journal is not what it used to be. 6 months and no feedback from the journal whtsoever. Two referee reports were really good. Very easy suggested an appropriate transfer and levied the submission fees, with editor providing quite helpful comments. Overall very fast process. Desk reject after 2 months. It took too long, I do not know if I would submit there again. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. Submission refund. The editor read the paper carefully and made helpful comments. Generous comments from editor and referees, lenghty referee reports; rejection because of one referee even though I discuss his point. Rejected within one day. Only have issues with one of the reviewers. Unfortunately paper was assigned to handling editor who was on study leave. One decent, the other sloppy. Avoid that journal. Two months for desk reject -- no comments given. Overall efficient process. An incompetent referee and an editor that could not care less of how slow the process was: a lethal combo, Quick decision, with some useful comments in the reports. Seemed like a very long time to only receive one referee report. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. After more data were collected, the editor said "a referee suggested empirical work was not serious enough." But then again it was my fault, I didn't run an experiment! Learn More About Katia. 19 Jul 2023. Ridicolous report: 3 lines where the referee asked to address "geopolitical" issues. 2 poor quality reports after 8 months of being under review. Slightly more informative than a desk rejection. Although I withdrew my article, editor sent me a rejection letter in a very rude manner. The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! One of the referees helped me structure the paper nicely. 1 Month from Submission to a very positive R&R. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. 2 referee reports. Desk rejected in two weeks. Clearly no effort was put into it. Fast and fair. Three months for an "out of scope" decision. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. Contribution not general enough suggests Review of Economics and Statistics. Horrible experience. Useful ref reports and helpful comments from co-editor. That's right. Thank goodness that there are more journals in health economics started. Kind, thoughtful, and brief editor letter. 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!!!). Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal. I was surprised these two letters resulted in the overall reject. Very Detailed construtive reports. Co-editor and one referee attacked the paper for something that the paper already explicitly adresses. The Editor is regular contributor to that mistake and provided non-sensical rejection. Clearly the paper was not good enough for the JIE. Extremely fast and helpful. took the money. Pleasant experience. Time to accept less than 1 year. The referees' comments were very much on target and thoughtful. They pocketed the submission fee, though! Both referees were concerned about identification, but did not suggest how to fix. Eight weeks to get two very high-quality reports. Yes, he can ask for odd things. Good comments. Almost happy. thorough but not brutal enough - the paper was not very a contribution at all at the time and needed a much harsher rejection, seriously, referee reports were very thorough and demonstrated expertise, rejections were fair - just wish I would have gotten these reviewers the first time I submitted the paper. The top traffic source to econjobrumors.com is Direct traffic, driving 56.39% of desktop visits last month, and Organic Search is the 2nd with 42.93% of traffic. Even though I debunked his claims every time, he was just coming up with new ones. One extremely useful and one useless report. 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) Editor does not see a path to acceptance so rejection. 6 weeks. Depressing experience. We thought we'd receive useful reports even if we got rejected, but this turned out to be a total waste of time. Would submit again. submitted 4 years ago, got a response after nearly 2, resubmitted, now waiting more than a year for a result, editor not responsive to queries about the status, look elsewhere before soubmitting in the Economic Modelling, terrible experience, I am thinking about withdrawing. Overall, I was very pleased with the process. Manuscript was withdrawn - editor had assigned referees within 3 months of submission but then these were apparently not forthcoming. Another one was sharp. General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,806) Micro Job Rumors (15,245) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,027) China Job Market (103,534) Perhaps the worst experience ever. Boo! UghhhI will probably withdraw the submission, It is the worst experience I have ever had with a journal. 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. Submitted a taxation paper that was outside of their comfort zone. paper.? Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. Overall, great experecience! Comments dubious at best. Efficient process and fast decision. Disappointed it wasn't sent out for review, but can't fault them for speed! Very happy LRM made it past desk. The report I did get back (in the form of an email from the editor) was not very informative (referee claimed "expressing time series as deviations from trend does not produce a stationary time series". I wonder how an editor can accept such low-quality output from the referees. fast process; only one report who was mainly referencing a single paper (SSRN, not published, single author); no useful feedback, disappointing experience. (This would have been easy to see from reading the intro before sending this to reviewers why not desk-reject instead of wasting author and reviewer time?). Very fast. Then one round of R&R and second referee changed his mind. According to him one referee is in favor but the other is not. Two horribly low quality reports. Good experience. Overall horrifying experience. Worse experience ever. Not big enough contribution. Seems to be a fair process, 13 months for editor to desk reject because the paper has no empirical section, One good report, very constructive, the other one rejecting the paper. Rejection reason shows Meghir did not read the paper, bad editor dull comments. Crappy reports. Reflects really poorly on the journal to keep this guy. Editor decided to reject it. Overall fair process. Will not submit here again. Mathematics Jobs Wiki. One of the best outlet for phd students. Actually Journal of Economic Policy Reform. Good reports. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. Not much insight from the editor, whose concerns were rather vague. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. Absolutely idiotic low-quality comments. A UK guy handles my paper and give me a desk rejection after 3 months. One where the only material comment has a grammatical error that makes understanding it difficult? A year after submission without result? One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. It took 4 months to get the reviews, but the reviews were excellent. The three reviewers really went through the proof, I was a little impressed by their comments. Overall, fair process. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. 1 referee with small reasonable suggestions. Will submit here again definitely but hate Elsevier so much. get first response in 28 days. Two referee reports: one decent, one poor. The other is constructive but not as good. Very satisfied with the experience. Recommended. 2.5 months review. Rather slow desk reject. 6 months for a referee report written by a plain imbecile who could not even derive Proposition 1. 3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal. Got two negative referee reports, where one in very useful, and the other is moderately so. Mod's pls delete it. it ?could ?be ?the ?case ?that ?I ?have? Suggested AEJ:AE, RESTAT and top field. Desk reject after about 2 weeks; friendly letter, not sufficiently novel enough (which is fair, not my best paper, IJIO 4th shot, paper now at 2nd tier field). Referee failed to upload report. reviews were helpful, required a month's solid work to revise. Reject and resubmit. 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). Very helpful reports and overall a smooth process. Bradshaw AdvisoryLondon/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds - UK. Minor changes, though. However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. Very good reports. Good report. The editor barely read the paper and decided to just reject it At least it was quick response - 11 days.
Tim Wells Bow Hunter Net Worth,
John Terrell Obituary,
Daily Herald Obituaries Past 3 Days,
Lawrenceville, Il Jail Mugshots,
Soundlogic Bluetooth Speaker 5b309bt Instructions,
Articles E