Desk reject after 3 days. Perhaps we can call JABO an experimental journal now. Results not important enough to a broad audience. But the decision was unfair. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. Dest rejected in three days. Referee reports complete crap. The editor Mark Taylor accepted the paper after one day of the last re-submission. Good experience. Second report very good. Advisors: Robert Seamans (Chair), Gino Cattani, Sinziana Dorobantu, Arun Sundararajan. Second one was about 15 lines. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. On this basis the paper is unsuitable for JAPE and the decision is to reject the paper. I will submit again. 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. 12 months and waiting. Quick responds. Fast. Resubmitted within the same day. Useful comments from knowledgeable reviewers. Apparently JHE considers itself general interest. But the editor (Kunst) decided to "follow the referee's advice to reject your submission", even though there was no indication of such a recommendation in the RR. One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. Big fat load of help. My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. A good referee report and very efficient editor. Boo! Professional and useful oversall. It also tries to give advice, but not really doable. His own comments were not based on the reports. First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. Referee did clearly said that the main mechanism is not compelling but did not give a single word on why our argument is persuasive or what else we could do to improve. Just didn't seem to believe paper, but without any really good reason. Reports with no use, in one case even mentioning the need of something that was already done in the paper. We did. Absolutely pathetic. Sent it to another top 5 instead where it got accepted after one round of revisions - never give up guys! Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half. It took 1 year from submission to acceptance, but the journal was quick, I took to long to do the revisions. If? Overall, a very fair process. Editing is a service and it is not mandatory. And he did not find the topic interesting. The AE also provided his own review. Desk rejected the same day! Nice letter. Rejected for not have a theoretical contribution. Funny thing is Editor endorsed reviewer's response. I am asked to send to another journal because the paper is not a good fit, the editor is very nice, professional and efficient. Rather short reports for waiting 6 months. Editor not helpful at all. Editor was kindly respond my email after 6 months, informed me that referees did not respond even after emailing them. referees said "nice but not great". Good reports and no nitpicking on the revision. They just pocketed the submission fee. The negative one says there is no methodology novelty. Short unhelpful referee reports which ask to cite referees. I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know very quick. Recommend. Empty report. Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! The negative one is essentially saying "it's not game theory so I don't care." 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). Although paper is accepted, i would hardly deal with them in the future. Good editing process. 84 W Santa Clara Street, Suite 770, San Jose, CA 95113. Overall smooth process. Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. Good first round reports, took a while to respond to all the comments. Two rounds of R&R. Avoid this journal. Editor provided no additional comments. very professional; some referees had good points; should have spent more time polishing the paper before submitting. The reviewers "firmly" recommend rejection but I see that most problems can be fixed. Rejected on the basis of wrong comments. Reviewers gave substantive comments and significantly improved the paper. We give the editors one week to judge the overall contribution and if acceptable send your paper to an associate editor. All excellent reports, and good suggestions from the co-editor about what to focus on and where to send next. Waste of time. Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. Would submit here again now that I know what to expect. I ended up presenting the paper at two conferences between the submission and the decision. Thanks for quick decision. One reviewer is helpful, another needs to retake econometrics course. Two good reports. The editor decided major revision. Will never submit to this journal again. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. I don't know what to add. Did not receive a rejection letter from the co-editor. Expected a bit better. I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. Great process, fortunate to make it past desk as LRM grad student, very helpful ref report received 8 days after submission. High quality editing. Handling editor still rejects for unclear reasons; very frustrating, but at least fairly timely. Serious referee report, but without any helpful particular suggestion. The comments from the editor are also disappointing: his main suggestion is to send our 7,500 words paper to economics letters. Seven months at least the reports where good. The other was much more careful. Referee comments show that it could be an RR but the editor rejected. Rejected with 2 reviews on the grounds of insufficient contribution to literature. The editor-in-chief writes, "Although the question you address and your results are interesting, in my view the paper is a poor fit for GEB's readership..". Three tough rounds which made the paper better. The ME provided helpful comments on top of the two reviewers'. Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. So not sure why the editor would say this is "fixable", unless he is trying to say it sucks in a nice way. Long wait. A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. What follows is a summary of what I see as the key advice, with links to other resources that go into more depth or do a better job than I can. Two straightforward reports calling for revision. AE also helpful. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Two referee reports. A five pages fantasy report written by a phd-student who did not read the paper. 3 sentences total, six months. Desk rejected thoughtelessly with curious comment paper read more like a book, 8 month desk reject with no reports--JPE is dead to me, desk rejected in a bit over a week, not clear who handled the paper. Good experience. Took a little over a month for the desk reject and no refunds. One referee report was very detailed. Good reports. Very fast rounds with very insightful and reasonable referee reports and suggestions by the editor. Rare experience where every round made paper much better. Nice rejection letter. Comments were meant for another paper. desk rejected in 3 days. it ?could ?be ?the ?case ?that ?I ?have? Worked butt off to respond to them. But editor rejects. Desk reject after 1 month. Two referees in the first round, good comments. It seems to me that this was an easy way for the new Editor to reject the paper! The editor rejects the paper and I think it is fair, but I do see that the paper can be improved based on these reports. As a theoretical contribution, it is not sufficient for Economics Letters. It is probably not surprising that the editor simply failed to understand the theoretical model and the referees had zero understanding of the empirics. 1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals. One synthetic but straight to the point referee report, asking for very specific and reasonable corrections to the paper. Third report seemed written by a sage speaking in amharic, most statements were elliptical in nature, and we were left wondering what the referee's point had been. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. 1 month desk reject. Received two detailed reports, which were reasonably useful. Desk rejected after one day due to poor fit. There was a second round of ref. Some interesting comments, but not much. Weird editor pushing for a change in the results. Very fast and professional referee reports. I stopped reading after that). had to withdraw, Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. Referee reports are interesting and constructive. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. It's quick, but the reports are really bad and unhelpful. Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper. Co-editor and one referee attacked the paper for something that the paper already explicitly adresses. NEVER submit there if you are pre-tenured. The reports were good and helpful. . All comments seem easy to answer. Fair enough. Wasted months of work. Poor comments, one paragraph each asking for minor changes but rejected. Think about submitting again. Maybe the paper did not merit publication in JMCB but that referee report was really ridiculous. It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. DK carefully read and gave constructive feedback. Reject and resubmit although both referees and AE advised revision. Would submit again. Yet editor made some good comments. First response in less than 3 months. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. Fast Review process. Resubmitted and the editor rejected the paper on the basis of concerns that were never raised before in the process (and are incorrect IMHO). Two referees made great reviews and very detailed comments. Ridiculous. I do not think that the referee understood my paper. It has been about 16 months now. Two sloppy reports, one useful. Ridiculous report by the most clueless referee who probably spend one hour only to read and review the paper altogether. 2 fairly helpful reports. Editor took two weeks to unconditionally accept. Explains longish time to first review. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. One very good report, the other average-to-good. Rejected as "Given the poor quality of provincial GDP statistics, CER has decided not to publish papers based on provincial GDP data for now until the true data series at the provincial level are reconstructed" but they are still publishing with this data see for instance Lv, Liu, and Li 2020 Fiscal incentives, competition, and investment in China. Placement Administrator: Stephanie Burbank 650-725-6198 [email protected]. Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. Editor claimed to have two reports but gave me only one. Getting a reference to AEJ Applied was worth it. First reviewer excellent. So, I "told mother", and she was like "What is Edge-mer? recommended Journal of Development Economics. Recently Announced. Desk rejected after more than 6 months without any review or comments. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. Completely unacceptable. That was also a very fast and good experience, though not the outcome I had hoped. several days. Not too bad an experience. Paper has since been published. Cool editor. I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Will never submit unless the editor is changed to an economist, Referees did not put much efforts. Standard rejection letter. I've been around the block a few times, published in top 5, and most of my articles get cited considerably more than average for the journal. Valid rejection. Tough revisions, but very fair. The referee reports were also awful. Editor wrote another helpful report as well. Desk reject after 27 days by Kurt Mitman. No additional comment from the editor. I waited six weeks for an inaccurate, one paragraph referee report? REHO is a scam, not a journal. Useless referee reports--one was just a single short paragraph. One referee report was very good; the second was also modestly helpful. Desk rejected in a month. The other referee has no idea what I am doing. One referee commented that we didn't make a methodological contribution and asked why economists should care about Y. awful reportreferee asked "why is this a problem?". E Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; F3 International Finance; F4 Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance; Banco de la Republica, the Colombian central bank, is interested in hiring a new or experienced Ph.D. economists to work as a researcher/economist.. Fair decision. Desk rejection with no comments in 3 weeks. A second round of minor revision was requested. 2 referees were positive throughout the process, one was an outright acceptance. 1 very good referee reports, 1 mediocre, editor was nice. Got rejection after 4 months. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. The report was very entensive and it required a lot of extra work but it was insightful as well (however, as always, we had to compromise in some things we were not fully convinced the referee was right). Referee makes a factually inaccurate claim about previous research, and misinterprets interaction terms. With editor for 1.5 month. No discussion on the ID strategy, nor the novelty of the data. Disappointing experience. 1 Week, Sent with reports (and subsequent updates) from earlier submission, Desk rejected reasonably fast after 2 weeks to submission. 2 referees clearly read the paper and made some good and insightful comments. Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal. Once that work was published, he finally accepted the paper. Letter by Concerned Economists Regarding "Contracting for Sex in the Editor read the paper and deskrejected in less than a week. very efficient process but experience depends crucially on editor. Fair process. First experience with this journal. Desk reject - research objectives and empirical methods questioned, paper referred to field journal. "The empirical econometric novelty of the paper is not substantial enough ", Desk rejection within five days / Poor allocation of coordinating editor (microeconometrician for a time series paper), Quick desk rejection after manuscript ID was assigned. Monica Singhal handled the submission within a bit less than 2 months, and takes time to give a detailed opinion on the paper, impresive! Finally, I have now wothdrawn my paper. Good. Smooth process, a bit too much work for this journal. Editor provided a letter with comments. No negative comments from referees on the substance, but one referee just didn't like it. Two referees. We made almost all of the changes required by the referees and the editor accepted it. ref reports were to the point but could have been higher quality for amount of time under review, Two reports, one useful, one much less so. One referee liked the paper but had doubts about the Y variable (kiss of death); other referee turned in a three page report but missed the point of the paper completely (while asking us to delete the explanation which would have answered his questions). 1 report suggesting to cite the Editor's work and speaking about things outside of the scope of the paper. Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. No reason provided, in line with the journal policy. Our paper is rejected after receiving one referee report. Avoid if possible. In an attempt to argue that young women and girls, many in their teens, voluntarily contracted themselves into sex work at the so-called "comfort stations" set up by the Imperial Japanese military during World War II, the article contains a . 1 months for desk reject. Good experience, good editor, great referees that really put me through my paces but helped deliver a better paper. 1 Referee provided useful comments that improved the paper. The editor also read the paper and gave very good comments and suggestions. It was a rejection but the editor (Abramitzky) read the paper and provided some additional comments that were helpful. Desk rejected in 3 days. No evidence anyone read the paper, even though they probably have the highest submission fee among econ journals. extremely slow. One excellent report, one mediocre report. re?write ?the ?paper ?with ?the ?help ?of ?some one? Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject. Two refereere reports and no comments from the editor on the reports. Fast and fair. This particular group controlling urban economics now will not let any differing view go through AER and JUE. The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. Unbased rejection after more than six months with mediocre reports and editorial justification. Two weeks. Ref2 was not. The other one, who wanted extra revises, was a bit of stupid. Editor cites two but only sends one. He said he liked my paper and thought it was inventive. Result are standard and no enough novelty! The editor's comments are not informative. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. Water Research Manager (Project Manager) High quality, detailed referee reports, which substantially improved the paper. One seems to be written by a first-year bachelor student. The final version of the proof was more elegant as a result, I am very appreciative of the reviewers and the editor. Both referees are bad at econometrics. What takes so long? Good handling by the editor (Reis). If you don't have that - expect to be desk rejected. Overall good experience. Horrible experience. This journal is a scam! Excellent comments from MN, good experience for a desk rejection. 10 days for desk rejection decision. I dont care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. 1 good Referee and good Editor. Fantastic journal. But I'm a nobody. A waste of 250$ and time. Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. The referee seems like a first year PhD student who struggled with the notion of left tails. Pleasant experience. Paper desk rejected in 3 days. From here on, AEJs are the way to go outside top 5. Slow. My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. 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. cooperative? Fast turn around. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. Excellent reports that really improved the paper. She admitted having forgotten about it until 8 months later and sent us a rejection. Neither referee is hostile. A year after submission without result? Just a couple of days for rejection, he had good words to say but paper too specific for general-interest. Available November 2022 for positions in Summer/Fall 2023. Waste of money. Submitted 4 February, rejected 29 December with 1 ok referee report that had been submitted in May. It took 4 months to get the reviews, but the reviews were excellent. Round 2 also yielded good referee reports too. 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) Referee didn't think the contribution is significant enough, so straight reject. 4 months for a desk rejection, frustratingly slow. Job Market Candidates 2022-23 | Economics - Boston University Desk reject after two weeks. but i think it is an important one that should be considered a bonafide econ journal. 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.
Counterbalancing Psychology Advantages, Egypt Shoe Size Chart, Olympic Weightlifting Records By Age, Cdc Booster Guidelines After Having Covid, Articles E