Citizenship In The Nation Requirement 8 Example, Apple Maps Reroute Around Traffic, Articles E

Solid referee report and very quick response. Four months for a desk reject! Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). The editor Mark Taylor accepted the paper after one day of the last re-submission. I? Clearly no effort was put into it. Reports were not very helpful. Thorough ref reports with good comments. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. Total turn around time was about 40 days. The referee did not read the first sentence of the paper and was not familiar with the literature. This decision is not in any sense a negative comment on the quality of the paper. two referee reports. one referee report was in after three months, AE waited 9 months before making a recommendation. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and about two months in the second round. Cool editor. Employers may also contact the students and their . Poor quality single report. Very smooth process. Six weeks for a desk reject with no reasons offered, Under editor's evaluation for almost 2 months. One detailed report. Reports have very clear constructive instructions and fast response. 6 months after that paper online. 1 on the fence. Fair decision, referee reports pointed out major flaw but hardly in a way that could be called constructive. Overall I think this journal should get a more diverse editorial board. Very quick. Both referees were concerned about identification, but did not suggest how to fix. Apparently JHE considers itself general interest. Between two referee reports and two conference discussions, I have some things to consider for future submission. Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. Apply for Market Access Asia region manager job with HPE in Taipei, Taipei City, 11568. Currently under R&R at a journal with the same ranking. Editor letter saying that what we do is not so new. 1 good, 1 okay and one bad review. Great management by editorial board although disappointing result. 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. Nothing that indicated they read the paper or even seriously considered it. Two years later still waiting for referee reports. Great judgment. the ?Nash? Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. Very helpful comments and suggestions from three reviewers and editor (Angeletos). Flores, Jairo. The paper is a solid analysis but does not sufficiently add to our understanding. Very unprofessional. Helpful editor. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. Two fantastic referee reports within 1.5 months. Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. A short piece from an expert in the field. Very slow. One good referee report, one referee who had no idea. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. 1 referee with small reasonable suggestions. Poor report but good comments from the associate editor, Associate Editor and the reviewer provided excellent feedback, Very fast and easy, but useless reports and editors (which is what I wanted for a quick worthless pub). No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. Useful and encouraging comments from referees, who appeared very interested in improving the paper and offering helpful suggestions to do so. Very good experience, Good experience. UghhhI will probably withdraw the submission, It is the worst experience I have ever had with a journal. Worst experience of my life. Worthless garbage report, no redeeming value. Useful and professional referee report . Rejected for not significant enough contribution. Two reports that are quite detailed. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. extremely slow. Economics, Tenured/Tenure-track Advertiser: Various departments, New York University Shanghai Field(s) of specialization: Econometrics - Microeconomics Efficient. Lucky to get past desk reject. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. After 6 months I got three good reports. R&R, took forever, reports mentioned but not provided, not responsive to emails. In print a couple of weeks later. Appreciate the quick turnaround. Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days. Not interested in the topic, acceptable decision. If you are in a hurry or need one to fill you CV, then choose it.. editor very helpful. Revision accepted three hours after submission. In 1974, the Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) began printing a periodical, Job Openings for Economists (JOE) (Coles etal. Tough but receptive referees. Very low process. Young is defined by the year of the first publication in any form. The referee suggested rejection, and the associate editor agreed. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. City of PhoenixPhoenix - USA, Senior Analyst - Economics Department Very good experience. not a fair process. Tone of the reports harsher than at better journals. Expected a bit better. Skip Navigation. The AEA provides a guide to the job market process created by John Cawley. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. one positive, one negative report. I recommend. Never submit again. Referees asked for reasonable stuff. Our paper is rejected after receiving one referee report. Horrible experience. Excellent and detailed report, fair decision. After waiting for 6 months, I sent a polite email to the editor asking if the paper fell through the cracks. I dont care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. Reason - paper was too specialized. That thing (s)he claimed was wrong was in fact trivially correct, but the referee was completely clueless. Name Department Contact Subfield . One crappy referee report, one useful referee report, one grad student referee report. Too slow. They pretend to look like an international journal however thay only consider studies related to Japan. A nice formated letter saying that the topic was not interesting enough for the audience of the Journal. Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. I sent off the revision less than 24 hours after the R&R. It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. Rubbish report ! recommend to send to some other theory journals but those theory journals have said I should send to this journal. But we are still hopeful. Desk rejected in two weeks. Very efficient process, very good comments from both the reviewers and the editor. Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half. Very constructive comments in the 1st round, quicking converging in the 2nd round. Both suggested rejection. Two weak reports. Desk rejected within 10 days. Under one month for one very brief report saying not good enough for the journal and a completely indecipherable AE report. Suggested AEJ:AE, RESTAT and top field. Almost two months for desk reject, no submission refund. He does not read the paper, or he has no expertise. Very high quality referee report. Overall, I was very pleased with the process. Expected better, expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision. SIX MONTHS for a desk reject. Editor Michele Boldrin did a good job handling the paper. Rather weird outcome but quite quick for a journal of its reputation. One of the best run journals in macro. Despite perceptions they do desk reject. The Editor was quite polite. happy with outcome. No input from editor either. one of the requests advanced was indeed something that was dealt with in a specific section of the paper, making me think that the referee quicly skimmed through the paper without proper attention). 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). Long waiting for 10 months, send 3 emails to ask, reply: under review, some useful comments from ref despite recommending reject. Two sloppy reports, one useful. Editor mentioned the wrong econometric model in email making it clear it was not read. I believe that if that is the reason it could have been desk rejected. "Referee report" Biggest joke on Earth!! Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. very professional; some referees had good points; should have spent more time polishing the paper before submitting. Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE. I inquired a few times, and they responded promptly and politely, but sitting on a manuscript for a year is obviously unacceptable. Editor was US-based and said that she likes the idea though! One somewhat elaborated report. Will not consider it again. Overall great experience. Would try again in the future. Awesome experience. Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). Super efficient handling by Prof. Sarte. We agreed with most of the comments. Two rounds of R&R. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. The editor said that referee is an expert in this field. Clear and concise communication with insightful and prfound comments by editor and reviewers. Submitted more than 2 months, still shown the status as "under ADM", 5 months first RR, 5 months second RR, 2 weeks final acceptance. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. 1 month + 10 days for desk rejection. Very efficient process. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. Good experience. Accepted after two rounds of revisions. The co-editor gave very specific, though difficult requests for the revision. Top scholars if it comes to RCTs, but no broaded view. Finance Job Rumors (489,006) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,503) Micro Job Rumors (15,223) Macro Job Rumors (9,792) European Job Market (100,940) China Job Market (103,450) Industry Rumors (40,309) RR time was only 2 weeks, no bullshit nitpicking. Referee reports were very brief and contained little in the way of substantive comments. Not too bad an experience. 2/2 referee reports were positive and suggested R&R because the contribution was significant enough. Referees' comments were useful. Desk reject in a week. Editor decided based on 1 report. Desk reject after 30 hours, helpful comments from the editor. Thanks for quick decision. Mostly generic comments. The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. Think about submitting again. More than 16 weeks!! Fast and friendly. The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. (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.). Unbelievably slow given their 30-day referee guideline. Extensive reviews though. one week to accepted with minor changes. Of these, 90 graduates (72%) chose positions at academic institutions and 38 graduates (27%) chose non-academic . Sometimes Batten took a long time to make a decision after the reviews were completed, but he was fair. Will never try it again. relatively fast process and referee helped to improve the papers. Great experience. 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..". After 10+ years in a research institution, counless submission, countless rejections, and some papers published in highly ranked journal, this was definitely my worst experience ever. From here on, AEJs are the way to go outside top 5. However, it was relatively fast at least. several days. Very fast and professional referee reports. Analytic number theorists: your opinion on TK's claimed disproof of the RH ? No flyouts yet. Desk rejection (standard email). faculty) positions. Quite fast I'd say, but comments were simple. Paper was internally valid-(ish) but not a big enough contribution. reports. Desk reject in 4 hours. Very fast. Probably he sent the paper to referees because he couldn't desk reject it, but his mind was made-up before hand. One brief report. Ref Reports: I'd say one okay, the other so-so. Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. The co-editor was very efficient and apparently read the paper. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. journal does not sound like a good fit for my research agenda. Unprofessional and incorrect comments by co-editor Rob Simmons. 1 positive and 1 negative report. Average Quality R-Reports, one missed one has good comments. Four RR rounds. Editor and co-editor are extremely nice and supportive. Good quality reports for a low-ranked journal, though. Editor read the paper, added some comments of her own. Not very impressed. In May 2016 the editor promised a decision within a days. apologize.? The paper was with the journal for five months and we got a rejection with only one referee report with 5 bullet points (two of which were about typos). After 12 months the paper was not even sent out to review or rejected despite 10 emails. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. Would submit again. Fast and clean. unreasonable report, the referee imposed a t-stat of at least 5 or 6 for an empirical study. The first referee points out at the weaknesses of the paper and proposes reasonable solutions. Desk reject within two weeks. 3 reports: 2 of them really good, one mediocre. Helpful and fair referee reports. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Burak Uras (Tilburg AP), Caitlin Hegarty (Michigan), Diana Sverdlin Lisker (MIT), Suzanna Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Garima Sharma (MIT), Ruozi Song (USC), Heitor Sandes Pellegrina (NYU Abu Dhabi), Juanma Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Katherine Stapleton (WB/Oxford), Dario Tortarolo (Berkeley), Jonah Rexer (Wharton), Anna Vitali (UCL), Livia Alfonsi (Berkeley), Binta Zahra Diop (Oxford), Shafaat Yar Khan (WB/Rochester), Althoff (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Vaidya (Northwestern), Chan (Stanford), Bodere (NYU), Pernoud (Stanford), Kang (Stanford GSB), Minni (LSE), Otero (Berkeley), Bodere (NYU), Vergara (Berkeley), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Carry (CREST), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Ospital (UCLA), Lanzani (MIT), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Kennedy (Berkeley), Souchier (Stanford). Finance Job Rumors (482,056) General Economics Job Market Discussion (727,619) Micro Job Rumors (14,915) Macro Job Rumors (9,755) European Job Market (100,185) China Job Market (102,275) Industry Rumors (39,946) So if your topic is not within this field, the desk rejection is much more likely. 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. Very fast. Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. Overall very good experience. Reports were okay but in the end not that helpful. One report after 18 months. Fast and fair. One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. A couple nice comments from Shleifer after two days. Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one). Three poor reports. Not recommended. 1st round 2 1/2 months. submitted half a year ago. Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. Overall a good experience! American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. One excellent and positive report. FYI: Your editor sucks). Title: Researcher Location: COLOMBIA JEL Classifications:. Fast, but absolutely useless reports. Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. Editor was great (helpful, insightful, truthful). Bit disappointing given the high fee. NEVER submit there if you are pre-tenured. fast turnaround. As a theoretical contribution, it is not sufficient for Economics Letters. I received my Ph.D. degree at the University of Chicago in 2022. WD has become a true shitshow. Post an advertisement. The editor is incredible. One of my best experiences. Fair experience. Meaningless reviews. reviewer knew an aspect of the literature and appeared to promote his own unpublished paper under review at the same journal. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. Quick and well handled by the editor. It took 4 months to get the reviews, but the reviews were excellent. Got accepted after a week. Rejected in 10 days. Decent referee reports. Referees and editor reports were incredibly useful, Shitty ref report. One paragraph report when decision finally made. I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. editor did not read the paper carefully, waste of US$250. Then why are we doing all this work?! Paper denounced an error on widely cited paper (unfairly comparing bootstrap vs asypmtotic theory with a nonpivot statistic!). Comments weren't helpful, but at least they didn't waste my time. the? Great experience - referee reports really helped improve the paper. $65 down the drain! Two and a half months for a desk reject for lack of fit. Empirical results didn't match their political priors so recommended rejection. Editor sent it to peer review in one day. Low quality referee reports. Excellent editorial work, with very clear road-map of how to address referee concerns. A really good experience and really fast. Desk rejected within 3 days with idiotic comments, as usual. 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. My paper was on Covid and one ref was clearly not an economist, suggesting medical/health indicators, references and logic; impossible to satify I think with economics arguments. One of them gave some good suggestions, but I disagree with some other points she made. AWFUL editorial work. Would not bother again. Much faster than last experience with the journal, same result. 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. The paper was not a good fit for the journal and another journal was recommended. It is probably not surprising that the editor simply failed to understand the theoretical model and the referees had zero understanding of the empirics. Editor argued I had observational data and no identification, hence instant rejection. One guy who had no clue, the other who had good insight into our paper. In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. Environment, Development, and Sustainability. Do not submit there. PhD & Postdoctoral Research Fellow Job Market Candidates 2022 - 2023 Home Page CV ANDREW HANNON PHD Research Fields: Macroeconomics, Household Finance, Sovereign Debt, Financial Stability and the Housing Market Job Market Paper: Falling Behind: Delinquency and Foreclosure in a Housing Crisis References: Dr. . Good experience. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so." No indication that the paper was read. Only have issues with one of the reviewers. Empty report. Some interesting comments, but not much. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). Editor made some quick comments and recommended 3 journals a tier below. Very good experience. 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. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. I revised as a new submission based on comments from a previous reviewer at the journal, referee report was short, but demonstrated expertise, could have addressed all of the comments but ultimately rejected under KS. Recommended. Mess with the submission, as they were changing editors. It took 3 weeks to get a desk reject letter. Fast. Overall, it was a smooth process. Recommend. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. Rejection based on technical point, which could be fixed withing 2 weeks. Fair process and good report. Only had to face one reviewer in the second round. 1 month desk reject. Nonder they are going down in ranking in Dev Econ steadily. Helpful comments from the editor. Answer in 24h. Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. Mod's pls delete it. Waste of time. Pointed out the problems in the model and also admitted that its difficult to take care of all those problems. One referee was OK with almost no comments. Turns out that means he's following the Schwert model: don't read the paper, regurgitate the reviewer's comments in the decision letter. No refund. It took them 13 months to tell us that the article was better suitable for a different journal, Generic Desk Reject - Fortunately they only took 2 days. I published my article in a very decent journal later. A long wait but not very helpful comments. Have contacted the editorail asistant three times (startung six weeks after submission) who said she would remind the editor. Very different than my past experience. Four line referee report written in a hurry before deadline and before ref obviously had to jet off on holiday. Desk rejected with 1 sentence after 2 months. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. 3 reports, very quick. The referee reports were serious and offered some good suggestions, although one of the referees appeared not to understand the theoretical model used in the paper. Good strong editors. Second report very good. Took a little over a month for the desk reject and no refunds. Will submit here again definitely but hate Elsevier so much. Very quick and professional editing. Miserable. desk with a letter from editor. Really quick response and decent referee report. One useful referee report and one that was not. Generous comments from editor and referees, lenghty referee reports; rejection because of one referee even though I discuss his point. Very quick response. I urged the editor to give me reports 3 months after the initial submission. No applied letter should take 9 months to referee and the fact that editor did not solicit additional reports or nag the referee shows they don't care. Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. The editor rejected after 12 months mentioning 4 referee reports. Our results didn't change. Quite clear they didn't bother to read manuscript. After fully addressing the reviewers' comments at each round, the article got rejected in the third round with a totally "ex nihilo" issue risen by one of the reviewers, who never mentioned the issue before. A bit slow for a 2000 words paper. Horrible process. However, once the paper was assigned to referees, the speed was normal. Horrible! The status are always the same "under review".