Very reputable journal with fast response policy which is good for authors: desk rejection in weeks, referee rejection in 2-3 months (usually). The positive report points out more contributions than we claim. One very grumpy referee report. Ridicolous report: 3 lines where the referee asked to address "geopolitical" issues. Second referee made some useful suggestions. Job Market - Economics If? 1.5 weeks overall, Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics. Job market wiki Economics Job Market Rumors Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. One positive one negative. editor read the paper and decided to give it an r&r. The referee asked for revision but Barnett or an AE rejected after I emailed them after 6 months. Accepted once I satisfied the referees. Pulled a weak R&R. Very bad experience. Available November 2022 for positions in Summer/Fall 2023. Some decent comments nevertheless. Result are standard and no enough novelty! This journal is completely a piece of junk. I believe that if that is the reason it could have been desk rejected. Pretty fast, 1 high quailty report. Very efficient process. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a papers contribution. very comprehensive report. Kicker: next day got an email to renew my CEA membership to be able to keep submitting to CJE! People need filters. Two referee reviews. Referee reports OK. cannot complaint about reports but could have been faster, bad reports, of the type "i don't like it". a positive experience, all in all. Yes, he can ask for odd things. Mostly good comments, though not given much detail about main criticism. Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA)Berkeley - USA, Director of Economics and Data by Tatonnement Oct 1, 2008 18:58:14 GMT -5: Legend. 6 weeks to get desk rejected for not being of general interest. Editor wrote report himself. He said he liked my paper and thought it was inventive. The results just didn't fit their priors. 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. JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending). Recommended. Very good editor recommending a field journal. Most horrible and bizarre referee reports. One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. Rogerson very quickly pointed out the paper did not merit publication. The referee checked my citations and offered helpful comments. Overall very good experience. They said they could not find reviewers. He just wanted me to write a different paper. Easy/doable revisions were asked. Health economics, Applied . AE did an awesome job. Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. It was quick. Both reviewers were positive suggested R&R. It took 3 weeks to get a desk reject letter. Three poor reports. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. It took 18 months after first revision. Four RR rounds. (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?). Helpful and doable things. Wasted months of work. Agreed that this journal is a joke. One reviewer seemed to think a clean accept, one was 'not really convinced'. Too slow. However, they want to reject whatever you want. Long process but well worth it! Clear and concise communication with insightful and prfound comments by editor and reviewers. I only regret not withdrawing this. Ph.D. Editor picked reasonable comments, asked to take into account suggestions, accepted the paper after the referees agreed that what I did is reasonable. Economics Job Market Rumors - Forum for Economists If you are an employer who would like to post hiring status information for positions at your institution, please contact EconTrack to register. Bad process. Emailed the editor at JPE for a brief explanation of why the paper was desk rejected so that I could improve it. Conveyed no sense at all that anyone even looked at the paper. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. But written by big shots. Very weak reports. Neither of the two reviewers seemed t have read the paper. Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Economics of Food Consumption and Distribution. Desk rejection by QJE does not convey the quality of the paper. Some good comments from referees, overall a good experience. Not too bad an experience. Incredible experience: one of the referee report told us that a working paper was published on almost the same subject (and justifies our rejection) but this working paper was published 5 months after our submission ! several days. Extensive reviews though. Much quicker response than suggestsed. Process a bit slow. 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) The other without serious suggestions. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. We believe this policy serves contributors who are saved months of unnecessary delays. The referee reports were also awful. Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). reports show referees were serious. 1 R was for R&R, another for weak R&R, another for reject. 2 decent reports. Ref Reports: I'd say one okay, the other so-so. game (can anyone confirm this?)? This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. Very constructive suggestions. Editor (Taylor) gave additional advice. 3rd round 1 month and then accepted. Seems like being rejected in virtue of the magnificence of the journal. His comments indicate he did not have an open arm to read introduction carefully to desk reject. the comment above was for another journals. Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. But 10 months is too long. His reports were completely crap. Desk rejected by editor, who said that editor in chief rejects ~40% and he rejects about the same. The editor Mark Taylor accepted the paper after one day of the last re-submission. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. Referees rejected. 2 months to R&R, revisions accepted by editor about a week after re-submission. They never refunded my fee either. Editor cites two but only sends one. Explains longish time to first review. Paper got desk rejected shortly after. Unbelievably fast and helpful. One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. The editor (Midrigan) collects three reports within 75 days. Fast Review process. Worst experience, A very very slow journal. two referees with constructive comments, one referee rather negative and no substantial comment. 4 months for a desk rejection, frustratingly slow. Suggests a field journal. 3 Reports. complete waste of time, Very nice editor's letter. would? Basically got a response on the next working day following a weekend. Editor provided detailed advice throughout the entire revision process. The closures follow the consequences of the 2020 BLM-Antifa riots that . Appreciate quick reject. Beyond the scope of the journal. OK report. I suspect a tight club. professional. Two useful reports and one garbage report thrashing the paper. Fast turnaround, I'm very happy with the experience. Special call. Disappointed it wasn't sent out for review, but can't fault them for speed! Great experience. Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions. Form letter. Both referees were a bit too negative, but the reports were useful. Extremely valuable referee reports and advices from the editor. Environment, Development, and Sustainability. 4 weeks for desk rejection is too much. Amit Khandelwal desk rejected a RCT health paper in 2 days with no specific comment..no refund of submission fee, I do not belong to their club, Very quick turnaround (~4 days), encouraging response suggesting field journals. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. the revision requirements seem achievable. Accepted after two rounds of revisions. Ref2 was not. Withdrew July 31, 2017. Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. Referee reject without any comments after 14 months of chasing the journal. Both referees are bad at econometrics. Desk reject in 7 days. never submit to this journal again. Happy with process. Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. Fair process. One reviewer asking for minor revisions, the other clearly reject the paper. Thanks Amy! Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. High Quality Editing. Pages for jobs that begin in 2023: African & African American Studies 2022-2023 American Studies 2022-2023 Anthropology 2022-2023 Archaeology 2022-2023 Art History 2022 . They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. Very helpful referee reports. Overall very fast process. At least response in 1.5 month. Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic. Very good experience. good reports. Awesome experience. Unfair letter from Emi N. Great letters from four referees and three of them are very positive! The decision is motivated by acceptable reasons and suggest potential alternative journals. One rubbish review from a referee who had no idea what the paper was about. Time to accept less than 1 year. There was a second round of ref. Clearly done day before deadline. Reports were ok but most of the time was waiting for editor to pull his finger out. Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. 2 quality ref reports + brief comments by editor. Obviously an inevitably subjective decision, but given this, the handling was very fair. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. My impression is that the editor didn't even bother looking at the paper. fair decision, Super quick desk rejection because paper uses archive data but isn't really econ hist, 6 months plus to first decision - then substantial time between R&R rounds, with pednatic comments which mostly wanted to remove the economics from the paper to the appendix. Go report in 2 days. Quick-ish, 10 weeks. Reason cited: weak paper. Dual submission to a conference, the submission fee is quite high. Job Market. Will not submit here in the future. Friendly referee with clear remarks. Reports were semi thorough and okay, appreciated the fairly quick response, The referees raised concerns that we were not able to see before, and they were fair. He might have read the abstract--clearly doesn't know the literature enough to see the contribution. Comments were meant for another paper. 2 weeks. One very good review, two quite missed points. It took almost two month for a desk reject. In December 2016 we managed to get a reply from the managing editor with the same story, that the decision was a matter of days. Desk rejected within 2 days. The reports were largely useless. Desh rejected in less than a week. Basically max 3-month turnaround from their side at any stage. Referee reports were of high quality. Job Market Candidates 2022 - New York University Tried to block publication in the second round as well but editor overrode. I waited fora long time only to be rejected with a response NOT A GOOD FIT. EER to toilet, the editors are clueless. rejected after 2 rounds of revisions. Suggested field journal. Decent referee reports. 2/2 referee reports were positive and suggested R&R because the contribution was significant enough. 2 weeks). They pretend to look like an international journal however thay only consider studies related to Japan. Nice words from the editor. The other referee has no idea what I am doing. They raised concerns that very literally addressed in section heads. Took 7 months to get one referee report. Next time, I will come back with a vip or friend of the editorial team to have positive a priori. I waited for seven months, only to receive one superficial referee report. Excellent communication with editor. 3 months (!) I am not in a club, whatever it is.). It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. In terms of rejections this is probably as good as it gets. Associate editors are very professional. Avoid this shitty journal. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. Editor was also very helpful. My paper was much of empirical. The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made. Incredibly tough process with three rounds of revisions - first round ended up me writing a response as long as the original paper. Very good experience; desk reject with highly valuable and fair comments by the co-editor within 10 days. The top 20% of women are chasing the top 1% of men. Would submit here again. Sometimes Batten took a long time to make a decision after the reviews were completed, but he was fair. Very good experience. One (very) useful report and one useless, 5 months from submission to acceptance, Desk reject in an hour. Poor / no justification for decision. Great experience. Made paper better. One report after 18 months. Pathetic Three reports, one good report the other two average. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. Good handling by the editor. Two horribly low quality reports. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. 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. Editor like the paper but their hands were tied, I guess. Candidate Job Market Roster: Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. I inquired a few times, and they responded promptly and politely, but sitting on a manuscript for a year is obviously unacceptable. This post is a continuous work in . This journal provides a lot of details to track your paper (in total, we got 6 change of status), however, the whole process took almost 6 months but the referee reports were ready in less than 2 months (probably because they get paid since submission is USD250). Not a good fit! Had to email them to speed up the revision process. I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. Economics Job Market. Two very constructive reports. decent referee reports, overall good experience. 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. Two very poor referee reports. reviews were helpful, required a month's solid work to revise. Both referees clearly read the paper and discussed potential concerns of the analysis. One referee does not follow simple math, immediately assumes the model is wrong and the editor takes his side. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. My experience with other journals when there is only 1 referee, the editor always provides a report detailing their reasons for accepting or rejecting the paper. Definitely recommend submitting to the journal. Reviews were not particularly helpful. End of story. Both referees suggested papers to be cited in the literature review, which seem like their own papers. The second was more critical. Useful comments from the editor (Stefan Nagel). Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. I felt as if 65$ has evaporated from my pocket. Your paper is not fit for public choice try with public economics. I had much better experience in American Journal of Health Economics. referee is very fast. Fast turn around. Kathryn spier, the editor, was even more clueless and unable to see that we were right and s(he) was wrong. Was desk rejected in one day. Unacceptable waiting time. Two referee reports: one decent, one poor. Also a very kind editorial letter. Very good referee and associate editor report. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again, Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees. The paper was accepted after I incorporated all suggestions in R&R. Over half a year for response from one referee who a) had no problems with the methodology, b) liked the writing, and c) thought it had a novel contribution. Too slow for a short paper, AE spent 4+ months to write very short and useless report. Will avoid in the future. What is up with Econ Job Rumors? : r/academiceconomics - reddit 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. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience! 18 days, no indication that either adstract or paper was read. Excellent experience. Good report with relevant comments which will be useful if publication of this study is pursued further. Fast desk reject (Ciccone), after few days. Insightful and constructive comments. Short turn around time. Four line referee report written in a hurry before deadline and before ref obviously had to jet off on holiday. Referee's comment was useful but contained too many extensions. Extremely efficient process with good comments by referees. awful reportreferee asked "why is this a problem?". Upon inspection these papers are only superficially related. One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. Desk rejected within 1 week. The editor likes the idea, but things the method is not new, so recommended to a field journal. A shame the editor sided with the second. Not a fit to the journal! Editor recommended field journal submission. HUMAN HELP: The Placement Chair for the 2022-2023 academic year is Professor Ben Handel, handel@berkeley.edu. I wonder whether they actually read the document. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. No reimburment of submission fee ($130). good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. One single bad report. Fairly standard rejection letter, not general enough. Terrible referees. What is left to say? Rejection reason shows Meghir did not read the paper, bad editor dull comments. Fast review process. Bad experience overall, although the reports came quickly. Econ Job Market Rumors Accounting | Now Hiring Great experience. Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. Mean and non-sense comments from one referee so that the editor had to apologize. Would submit again. Good reports. No progress in six months although I send emails to push. Applying for academic jobs. Great experience! Lots of puffed up explanation marks and faux outrage. She said only 1 (very short but with no objections) of 3 of the referees responded and was not able to find new referees. Desk reject for paper being too narrow for the audience of the journal. The second one is more critical and seems to be angry by the fact that I'm not citing his work. But editor rejects. The reports are also very helpful. Although QJE may be one of the oldest professional journal of economics published in the English language, it is also stale. Editor desk rejected stating that paper (which was on the program of Top 3 conferences etc.) Very good experience! Co-editor and one referee attacked the paper for something that the paper already explicitly adresses. Professional co-editor and referee. The editor (Mallick) gave us some additional advice and was ok with the result. good process overall, Good experience. (As we've seen, courtesy of Raj Chetty and Diamond/Mirrlees, sometimes they split your paper and accept.). Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. 2-pages report, few suggestions. Also revisions handled quite efficiently! First round of referee reports obtained in another 2 months. very professional; some referees had good points; should have spent more time polishing the paper before submitting. It's going to be most accurate for economics, political science, public policy & other professional schools. They will not respond to editorial office inquiries or direct emails to the editors. Fair points raised, although I would have preferred a R&R naturally. Was rejected today by editor as only 1/2 referee reports submitted. Initial response slow, then extremely quick after R&R. English. Particularly, one of the referees seemed like he didn't read a single word past the intro. No specific comment from the editor. This was the worst referee report ever. Bad experience. One reviewer was ok after the first R&R. Three referee reports. Not sure what the editor(s) are doing at this journal but whatever it is, it is not quality overseeing and editing of papers. Rejection based on fit. Revision accepted for publication in one week. Really improved the paper. EJM - Econ Job Market AER Insights: Generic rejection without any thought or suggestion. 3 more months for two reports containing blatant mistakes and outrageous claims that have nothing to do with the paper. The law scholar did not like technical thing but I just used. The editor decided to reject, I am not in the club. Very pleasant experience. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list. Super fast process than I had expected. Suggested to send to another journal! Or rather, the editor is very lazy to follow up on the reports. A short piece from an expert in the field. R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. Not belonging to the club implies rejection. Desk rejected in 14 days, just long enough to get hopes up, with boilerplate "not general interest.". SVAT is a full service firm in the areas of bookkeeping, accounting, tax and small . more months, before rejection based on superficial comments. First report was helpful, second one was literally 2 lines. The model is not in AE's taste. Three months for an "out of scope" decision. Excellent ref report. Desk rejected within 7 days. After "awaiting referee selection" for 4 months, I sent a query and got one referee report. A complete discrage. 2 weeks to receive desk rejection. Two very thin referee reports. Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. Editor was Barro. desk reject after 9 days - reason: editor feels not suitable for publication. Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half. The time to response is not long as well. editorial team do not respond to email. And because he could not find theoretical contributions. After another three months, the paper was reject on the basis of a presumed 2nd referee report, only with a few lines, that says the paper is "well structured, well written, and deploys sound econometric methodology", but "does not add value to the existing literature". Referee report was reasonable and improved the paper. Unbelieveble how fast some journals work!!!!! Surprisingly, she had one-page long useful comments, which helped improve the paper. Nice editor message.