Horrible editorial process. Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. Reviews not very helpful as it seems like psychologists reviewed it. short straightforward paper, should take max 2 hours to read carefully,still under review, editor (Hall) non-responsive, waiting 30 months for response, editor not responding to inquiries. Heard nothing and received no replies to my emails. Reviewer number two said the paper had no relevant contribution beyond those of a paper recently published in a top journal. They also indicated that the paper was better suited to a a different journal. One stern but very helpful referee report (five pages, competent and extremely detailed) in two weeks. Some fair comments. 1 report half page long. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. The paper is a solid analysis but does not sufficiently add to our understanding. Very efficient editorial process by Ken West. Depressing experience. Worst experience with a journal so far. 1.5 weeks overall, Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics. It is not very clear why it got rejected at the end (I guess referees recommended rejection but thsi was not stated in their reports so it coudl have been the editor who thought it was difficut to get published given the work needed). Desk rejection in 6 minutes with a "pretended" letter, which could be used for any paper. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. Bad experience overall. The editor informed us that the contribution of the paper was not high enough for this journal although the topic has been examined in the past by other papers in this Journal. Very Detailed construtive reports. Nice letter. I understand there is variability in this process, but it was a terrible experience. Assistant Professor, Macroeconomics. Referee report was reasonable and improved the manuscript. Pretty rough coments from an editor who clearly did not get the point of the paper. We sent two more emails about the status of the paper and did not get a response from the office. It is a pity it was rejected, but I appreciate the quick response. Useful comments from the editor who had to stand in for the unresponsive second referee. Report from ref1 and AE were very helpful. 3 Reports. It was a long process but the editor and referees were genuinely helpful. Suggested to send to another journal! Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. After about 1 year of wait, the editor decided to reject the submission on the basis of 1 report (2 referees did not respond) that contained only 2-3 lines that already work was done on the topic (although appreciating the empirical analysis). Environment, Development, and Sustainability. Referee was perceptive and pointed out serious flaws in the first draft. I haven't received the first response yet. Professional reports. That indicates he/she did not finish reading the paper. Rigor of the paper increased greatly because of the refereeing process. Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. Referee reports are interesting and constructive. Editor response, not a fit to the journal, too theory! One referee gave lots of great comments, while the other referee was pretty much useless. I am a macroeconomist specialized in economic growth and macro labor. One referee posted two of his own papers including url in the report, one of which was just accepted in the same journal before sending reports. After R&R, the referee required one more round of revision. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. Accepted without need for further revisions. Long process but well worth it! They kept the application fee. Desk rejected after a week with no comments. Very fast process. Two useful reports that improved the paper. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. Instead, they should've looked at B." The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. Reviewers seem to be very well acquainted with my research area (health). Mostly good comments, though not given much detail about main criticism. Had to withdraw after waiting for nearly a year and a half. Desk rejected after 1 month. desk rejected after thee months. Good Experience. Two reports negative and one positive, editor chooses to reject. Good enough experience and fair. Can you get a job? It too me the editor 13 months to desk reject. Excellent editorial work, with very clear road-map of how to address referee concerns. Good experience as far as rejections go. 9 months to one ref report which was not helpful. Job Market. REHO is a scam, not a journal. Three rounds: one major + two minor (the last one being really minor, like copy-editing and missing references minor). One good quality referee with good comments and suggestions. One of the referee reports was of alarmingly low quality. editor obviously read the paper (indicated by reference to appendix figure in the letter); nice and helpful comments. Polite, even quite positive reports. Not very impressed. 3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal. Suggested changes and several other outlets. Low quality comments from Frank Sloan. 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. Health economics, Applied . Desk rejected as outside the scope of the journal. Posted: (4 days ago) WebNov 2011 - Present10 years 4 months. Polite letter from Bekaert. It was clear that the referees read the paper and provided appropriate comments. One ref suggested I send it to JPE before trying places like EJ or ReStat. useless reports referees didn't seem to read the paper and appeared not to be experts .. Desk-rejected in 7 days: "the paper lacks sufficient political economy content to be appropriate". The paper would be a good fit. Seemed like a very long time to only receive one referee report. Fair decision. Really quick response and decent referee report. The editor's letter was well-written. Two careful reports with good feedback. Very positive experience. Best experience in a long time. the ?Nash? OK comments from referee. Absolutely disappointed by extremely poor response from the editor (Horioka). Not good enough for general interest. only one report (quite helpful). Helpful referee reports. It's quick, but the reports are really bad and unhelpful. Quick desk rejection; field journals recommende, Rejected within one week, but useful comments and advice given by editor, Uhlig, justified decison with kind and informed letter from the editor. Editor then said with a quick/thorough response and no need to go back to refs. Didn't fit journal aims well enough - very courteous rejection with suggestions on where to try next, the issue did not fit no justifications. The third was R&R, and was more substantive. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. rejected in exactly three weeks - editor said that the topic only gets published in JEBO if there's a special issue (which mine was not connected with). Editor actually read the paper. 2 shortish referee reports one fairly positive the other fairly negative, editor decided to reject based on lack of originality. Not even a single remotely useful comment. One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. Home. Referee failed to upload report. The editor was good. Painfully crushing rejection, as all referees agreed it was a good paper, but had some valid concerns about length and possible general interest contribution. Good experience. Employers can provide information about their ongoing hiring processes for candidates on the job market. Editor mentioned the wrong econometric model in email making it clear it was not read. Finance Job Rumors (489,418) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,722) Micro Job Rumors (15,231) Macro Job Rumors (9,801) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,526) Industry Rumors (40,345) Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. I think s/he would have been satisfied by an appendix section on the issue raised. Very good referee reports. Suggested AEJ:AE, RESTAT and top field. 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 . Withdrew article from consideration after 18 months of wait. And once that was done, he wanted us to rewrite the article. We got referee rejection in 2.5 months: 2 referees, one favours RR, other rejects. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. The second round of review only took 3 weeks. Editor identity unknown. 6 weeks. Bad to useless reports after a longish delay. not worth the time and effort. Very unlucky submission: First round Reject and Resubmit. Will not b submitting here again until editorial board changes. A journal to avoid. Not sure what the editor(s) are doing at this journal but whatever it is, it is not quality overseeing and editing of papers. Overall, very positive experience. Both reports were very shorts (one was just a few lines). Rejected after one round of review despite all referee comments being addressed. is ?so ?poor? Very fast, two high quality referee reports. 2.5 months to get a RR. Wasted 17 months. 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. Very good experience. Nice experience. (310) 206-1413. Great experience in general! Very good comments from both the reviewers and editors. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. Long wait though. Not general interest enough. I wish we had drawn a different editor. Said they would refund the submission fee, which is nice. 4.5 months to get the 1st-round comments, 2.5 months for 2nd round. Very efficient process. Very constructive comments from Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) and referees. I sent in my paper and after 2 emails requesting information about the status of my manuscript, I was asked to be patient. 10 days for desk rejection decision. Great turnaround I guess? This page collects information about the academic mathematics job market: positions, short lists, offers, acceptances, etc. Overall very good experience. He suggested a more suitable outlet. 12 months and waiting. Very bad experience. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. Single report. A couple nice comments from Shleifer after two days. Editor handled the paper well. Reject and resubmit although both referees and AE advised revision. Overall, very happy with the process. Click here for more information. 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". Apparently is unaware of large literature in multiple fields to which topic pertains. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. Five weeks, submission to rejection. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. No ref reports, 1 sentence from editor. Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. Editor rejected. Desk reject within 1 day. Useful letter from the editor. Long reports with some good comments. No substantive comments from any of the three referees. Desk reject in 7 days. Referee was sharp, thoughtful, and thorough. Two referees. candidates received letter saying search now closed- did anyone get the position? Fair decision. The results just didn't fit their priors. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Editor (Partridge) was very helpful and was de facto a 4th referee. Fast and uninformative. Special call. Other than that, the process was good. Reports were not very helpful. Re-submission took a week to be finally be accepted. Both editor and referees liked the paper, comments from referees are on the point and constructive. Co-editor rejects because contribution is not big enough to warrant publication. The paper was accepted quickly after revision. Good comments from the reviewers. They pocketed the submission fee, though! One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. AE recommended another journal. 8 days for a desk rejection. Wasted months of work. A true scholar and a gentleman. Rejected because topic did not fit the journal. Efficient process. Two referee reviews. Excellent reports that really improved the paper. Actually took nearly 15 months. So if your topic is not within this field, the desk rejection is much more likely. 1 useless report, 1 very helpful and 1 okay. Economics Job Market Rumors . Helpful comments from the editor. But very quick process after contacting editorial office. very thorough with helpful suggestions for revision. Professional editor. Second one was about 15 lines. Two high quality reports. Placement Administrator: Stephanie Burbank 650-725-6198 sburbank@stanford.edu. Editor does not even both to check referee letter. Editor is bonkers, he said article was outside scope of journal.when it was clearly regiona/urban economics article. Chat (0) Conferences. Helpful for resubmission somewhere else. Doesn't seem it was read beyond the title. It has been about 16 months now. 3 reports in 28 days. improved paper based on comments. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. What a joke! 1 day desk rejection by editor. Desk rejected in a few days. topics should probably be closely related to banking. Poorly managed. Bad experience. Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. One very good set of comments. Quick responds. Bazinga! Emailed journal to withdraw submission after 14 months. Great experience, one of the referees truly improved the paper substantially. Nice words from the editor. Desk rejected in two hours with a polite email that basically said "your methodology is wrong and your question is wrong." Good experience. They have not released it, sorry. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. 5 months for one low-quality referee report. Very professional way of handling the process, Very helpful report which has permitted to increase the quality of the paper. Two reports of middling quality. The reason for rejection was that my paper was too specific for their readers. Fast and efficient. I feel that mediocre editors are too scared to consider papers unless at least one of the authors is a big shot. 2 months for decision from being notified that "reviews received" and one of the referee reports was dated 7 months ago. Excellent desk reject by Larry S. Recommended a field journal by the editor. The bar is high for Exp Econ. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. Editor didn't waste any time on accepting after first revision. Garbage. The editor said there was issues with finding referees. Boo! Two rounds of R&R. Editor did not add any comments. -- Divided referee reports. Advisors: Raquel Fernndez, Martin Rotemberg, Elena Manresa. 1 months for desk reject. Somehow it took a whole year for the referees to write short and horribly useless reports which show they did not even bother to read the introduction. Job Market. First round of referee reports obtained in another 2 months. Very efficient. Editor suggested that paper was better suited for JDE (LOL). Fair enough reasons why, but would have appreciated less time. Took 3 month for a simple "out of scope" notification!! 6 months to receive half-assed & useless referee reports and request for major revisions. Polite / nice email from Editor. The referee has read the paper. Awesome experience. Demanding but helpful referee reports. AFter 3 months of being "under review", I get this email: I regret to say that we are not able to offer publication to your paper. Very helpful referee report. Useful comments from the editor (Stefan Nagel). Revision accepted three hours after submission. Rejection after R&R. Initially submitted on 2 Aug, we got the rejection six month later. Fast and fair. bad experience close call, got rejected Change of editor in charge during the process. Bad experience. Fair decision and process, 2 mildly positive reviews, editor shot it down. Quick turnaround. Second referee made some useful suggestions. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. One good referee, one ok, one terrible. Not a particularly good experience, constructive reports, editor had read the paper and gave additional comments, One bad/objectively false report, one useful report. I assume he did not like the topic at the end. Less than 2 months for the decision with 2 reports, which is very quick. We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. Smooth process. Desk reject in one week, some good comments from editor. Bad experience, waste of money and time. One line "referee report". 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). According to him one referee is in favor but the other is not. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. super slow for what they give. Disappointing as paper got some fine ref reports in another top journal and revised. Desk reject two days after I submitted the manuscript. The former editors at the penn state just issued reject to relieve their editorial jobs. The negative one is essentially saying "it's not game theory so I don't care." The paragraph/comment not constructive. One referee suggests alternative data sources for robustness even though it took as a year to hand-collect the original data. I think that's fair, since I had also suspected the paper might not be a great fit. Mostly generic comments. Rubbish report ! AWFUL editorial work. Fast desk reject on subjective grounds. Tough revisions, but very fair. Very quick. However, everything was fixed, and overall I am happy. We have done that, after several weeks, no answer. 1 serious person pushing his method. Paper denounced an error on widely cited paper (unfairly comparing bootstrap vs asypmtotic theory with a nonpivot statistic!). Associate editor rejected on poor grounds. Got accepted after a week. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. Most dishonest rejection. Candidate Job Market Roster. Insightful comments by both referees and editor. "Growing by the Masses: Revisiting the Link between Firm Size and Market . Yes, he can ask for odd things. Editor admitted haven't read the paper. Argued lack of fit, dispite publishing a paper on the subject a few months ago, one very short useless report in seven months, 5 months + 125USD for a referee rejection with a report of about 21 lines.SHAME. Two solid referee reports. Good experience. Very quick desk reject. Desk reject in a week. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. 1 month desk reject. Kohlhase). He gave few recommendations. Very quick and very fair. Old fashined. One referee report after 11 months. The editor did point out a couple of interesting things. 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. Fast editors. paper took over a month to get desk rejected because of problems with elsevier system. One highly vauable report; one okay-ish, one less useful. That is not cool. From the comments it could have been an R&R, at least the referee and editor comments were helpful and will help to improve the paper, Though it is rejcted, I want to express my thankness to the refreee, who provdes a exremly high quality report. The current reality of the economics job market is this. Not so much from the Associate Editor. 2/2 referee reports were positive and suggested R&R because the contribution was significant enough. Very poor experience. Pretty stupid rationale based on lack of methodological innovation. 2 weeks for 2 high quality ref reports. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. Resubmitted and then conditional accepted within a week. Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality. Both referees were a bit too negative, but the reports were useful. Two of three referees did not read the paper. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. Waste my time. Submission fee refund. Currently under R&R at a journal with the same ranking. In anyway, you need to be very careful when responding with him, he can easily upset you with a rejection. One report after 18 months. Editor misunderstood the findings, complained didn't understand the Y variable (maybe ease up on the word limit then). terrible experience, after submission my paper was not sent out to referees for more than 6 months. The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. The whole process took about a little bit more than a year, which is very good. Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience! Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. (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.). Reasonable response. Apparently JHE considers itself general interest. Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. 2 weeks to generic desk reject with no comments whatsoever. Terrible referee did not understand LATE and simply could not be satisfied. Two rounds of R&R, final acceptance after second round within 5 days. Nice experience. Referees did not understand the contribution of the paper. Not of broad interest. Unfortunately, this is my usual experience with EER. Waited 13 months to two mildly positive reports. Good experience, great turnaround. Editor decided to reject because he could only find one person to review. While the paper was rejected the referee reports were in-depth and very helpful. Not so many comments; recommended two very good field journals. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. After revising the paper based on the comments of two referees, the Associate editor chimed in with his useless comments to reject the paper. Very quick response. One useless report, and one very useful report. Do not submit to this journal. Editor was US-based and said that she likes the idea though! Ridiculous experience. Where would you rank Michigan/Ross finance now? Fair and constructive comments. The referee reports were fairly good. Much better than overal reputation of journal. Poor / no justification for decision. International Review of Financial Analysis. Very efficient; referee reports are of pretty high quality. Two helpful referee reports. Massive waste of time and money. 3 reports. Chat (0) Conferences. Tried to block publication in the second round as well but editor overrode. fast turnaround. Two referees, two weak R&Rs, editor rejects despite the recommendations of referees.
The Batman 2022 Prequel Novel Pdf, Articles E