Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. Definetely the referees liked the idea and wanted to improve paper's quality not to argue with its contribution. Referee obviously has no clue of what's going on. the job market for junior economists. Really unfortunate waste of time. Economics Job Market Rumors . I had. Only have issues with one of the reviewers. Revision accepted three hours after submission. Although I withdrew my article, editor sent me a rejection letter in a very rude manner. Desk Reject, No Comment, Horrible Experience- THEY DO NOT REFUND the submission fee. Hello! Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject. This is the letter I sent to the editor of JME: Laughable report (where do they find these clueless idiots?). Desk rejected within 10 days because the topic was not fit to the journal (it may have been a reasonable response given the topic). One detailed report. Reason - paper was too specialized. Useful comments from knowledgeable reviewers. Overall, the reports were good so no complains. (are we a bit paranoiac?). happy for a quick decision. Overall good experience. best submission experience. Some not so fair. said it was a matter of fit. Editor was polite. Worst referee report ever with unsubstantiated claims. 2 quick rounds of R&R. Referee comments greatly improved the paper, editor was awesome. An uprising journal so I recommend people to publish here. 3rd review was pending. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. Super fast and clear feedback. 1 reject and 1 R&R. four reports. They like the paper but the contribution not enough for Econometrica. Will submit again. Liked the paper but contribution too small. Big lie. Excellent experience. Terrible to treat junior people this way. Editor seemed to have liked the paper despite ref rejection. Desk reject in two days for not being general enough, $132 fee not refunded. Desk Rejected after 2 days. Boo! Referees lukewarm, Foster took time and effort to explain his decision, also indicated a number of pathways to strengthen the paper. 1 positive and 1 negative report. Super efficient handling by Prof. Sarte. Accepted 1 1/2 weeks after revision was submitted. Placements of Recent Economics Graduates. Very good experience, Good experience. avoid. I am currently studying the interaction between technological and demographic changes and the labor market. According to him one referee is in favor but the other is not. Although other comments on this journal say that the review process is long, I had very different experience. Accepted as it is. Referees' comments were useful. Home. Referee 2 was completely positive and was clearly knowledgeable of field. Overall a good experience that will help the paper! One referee was thoughtful and recommended acceptance; Second referee asked for more results; AE agreed with the 1st referee. Didn't let it go, Editor told him to "#"# off and published the paper anyway. Extremly disappointing for a journal which claims to be the number one field journal. One nice and one not nice referee. We made almost all of the changes required by the referees and the editor accepted it. Editor did not catch these oversights. All in all it was a fair rejection and a good experience overall. After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. Fairly standard rejection letter, not general enough. Generic letter. Extremely long wait at this journal for comments. "We are hesitant to publish purely empirical papers" comment could have been boilerplate but seemed uninformative, Exceptionally quick turnaround times. One very good referee report (I feel he has pubs in AER, JPE) and one useless report (he doesn't know anything about business economics). Smooth process, a bit too much work for this journal. Editor says "..his delay is mainly the result of needing to get a second editorial assessment which suggested this paper's arguments are less likely to find a responsive audience in our journal's readership". Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Putea MatuaWellington - New Zealand, Assistant Director, Economics Nice comments and feedback from Associate Editor. Response was less than two months from submission -- super quick. Fast and clean. One review was good, and helped to improve the paper, the other one (recommended rejection) was raising many peripheral issues. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. A fairly high quality report, useful, within 24 days. Editor is very efficient and professional. very fast response and useful comments from a referee. Submitted more than 2 months, still shown the status as "under ADM", 5 months first RR, 5 months second RR, 2 weeks final acceptance. Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. One positive and one negative. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and about two months in the second round. Basically max 3-month turnaround from their side at any stage. Waste of $100. Took altogether 8 months to acceptance. one ok report, one very hostile. Amazing efficiency. Good enough experience and fair. Referee comments were useful, editor clearly did not understand judging from his remarks, which made it frustrating. within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Difficulties to reach the editor, but useful report and very fast decision (1 day) after submitted the revised manuscript. One report was not very helpful. Very good experience. Two reports (half-page each) citing minor issues. Submitted July 2012, short empirical paper, still waiting for first response. Even though the outcome is positive, I blame the editor for not selecting competent enough referees to begin with. Editor reject due to relevance. Quick turnaround upon revision. Very helpful comments. The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. Associate editor rejected on poor grounds. linking the paper with the "literature in the field", although we specifically say that our empirical application is novel to the field, so there are no comparable references. The peer review process was fast. R&R only one round; after submitting the revised version, only waited for six days until final acceptance. Horrible experience, late response, useless report. 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). Sent it to another top 5 instead where it got accepted after one round of revisions - never give up guys! Rejected after one round of review despite all referee comments being addressed. Fair decision. Department of Geography. Said the contribution was too small, which I accept. Nice experience, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. they should have desk rejected, AE told me: you should not be surprised that IER typically does not appreciate this kind of work.. they wasted my time. Thorough ref reports with good comments. editorial team do not respond to email. I think he/she was too lazy or unfamiliar with the literature to read the paper carefully. Slow moving. 3 Reports. 5 days, paper is too specific for QJE, Helpman suggested another journal. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. Terribly disappointing experience. Of these, 90 graduates (72%) chose positions at academic institutions and 38 graduates (27%) chose non-academic . 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. Good experience. Same referee as for a previous submission to a high-ranked journal. Unfair decision. fast desk rejection within 2 days. The contribution of the paper is not enough for EL! 3 years for a desk rejection, after sending them at least 6 emails and filing a complain with the publisher. Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. Bad experience. But at least fast. Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. All reports were useful and very demanding. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 10 days in total!!! Very polite desk rejection. Good experience, even though a reject. Isnt it written that this journal focuses on mathematical reasoning instead of sticking to conventional setup? Timely, informed, and critical. Quick desk reject after less than 24 hours without comments, annoying given the submission fee. Nice experience. 10 days for desk reject. A disappointment. Reports with no use, in one case even mentioning the need of something that was already done in the paper. No BS, great experience! Quite good reports and sufficiently fast process. Just thoroughly unprofessional report. The university is also very well-known for its intellectual atmosphere and abundance of creativ. Reports were of moderate quality. I would submit again or recommend this outlet! Surprisingly, she had one-page long useful comments, which helped improve the paper. To avoid. 20 Feb 2023. Reports submitted within one month. Editor agreed with them. editor is dumber than a second coat of paint. quick process but the editor provided no information and was impolite. Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. Sounds fair. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. Absolutely pathetic. Editor was also very helpful. Quick and professional handling by the editor. Total 6 months. Good communication and seemed very efficient. The negative one says there is no methodology novelty. Lorentzen (BI Norway), Lieber (Chicago), Lyngse (Copenhagen), Ststad (PSE), Osun (Maryland), Majewska (Toulouse), Nord (EUI), Sverud (Copenhagen), Zillessen (Oxford), Carry (CREST), Airaudo (Carlos III), See https://www.economics.ku.dk/Calendar/seminars/, Shunsuke Tsuda (Brown), Catherine van der List (UBC), Victor Pouliquen (Oxford), Evgeny Yakovlev (NES), Andreas Ziegler (Amsterdam), Valerio Pieroni (UAB), Thomas Brzustowski (LSE), Assistant/Associate/Full Professor-Ag and Applied Economics, University of Georgia (Terry College of Business), Thereze (Princeton); Lee (Princeton); Geddes (Northwestern); Vitali (UCL); Crews (Chicago); Cai (Northwestern); Kang (Stanford GSB); Bodere (NYU), Bodere (NYU), Cai (Northwestern), Thereze (Princeton), AP of Economics at Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan Ross School of Business, Serna (Wisconsin), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Qiu (Penn), Geddes (Northwestern), Altmann (Oxford), Kleinman (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Kahou (UBC) Kim (Penn) Holz (Northwestern) Holz (Chicago Harris) Wang (Rochester) Arbour (Toronto) Lee (Chicago Harris) Wasser (Cornell) Robinson (UCSB), Development, Political Econ, Applied Micro, Lecturer (Assistant Professor), Senior Lecturer and/or Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Yes- some girl accepted offer then took another job, Aina (Zurich), Bertazzini (Oxford), pires (berkeley), oliveira (berkeley), schief (brown), uccioli (MIT), sartre (brown), Sartre (Brown), Bertazzini (Oxford), Uccioli (MIT), Skoda (Zurich), De Vera (CEMFI), Sui (Rochester), Aina (Zurich), Ghersengorin (PSE), Hancart (UCL), de Carvalho (UBC), Gavan (UPF), Milson (Oxford), Schneider (UZH), Vattuone (Warwick), Herstad (Chicago), von Carnap (IIES), Lorentzen (BI), Altmann (Oxford); See https://tinyurl.com/mryuahhm, Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford), Sung (Columbia), Lanteri (Duke), Hui (LSE), Nord (EUI), Cruces (UC3M), Williams (Yale), Marto (Penn), Trouvain (Michigan), Sturm (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton); Lanzani (MIT); Cai (Northwestern);Guerreiro (Northwestern); Nord (EUI); Ederer (TSE); Starck (Brown); Bellue (Mannheim); Diop (Oxford); Banchio (Stanford GSB); Pernoud (Stanford); Saxena (Harvard); Souchier (Stanford); Vitali (UCL); Sharma; Serna (Wisconsin), Wheeler (UC Berkeley), Bagga (UT Austin), Gutierrez (Chicago), Szerman (Princeton), Crews (Chicago), Nord (EUI), Peng (Penn), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), University of Rochester (Simon Business School), Arkhangelsky (CEMFI AP), Bai (Michigan AP), Pouliot (Chicago Harris AP), Chang (Yale), Cai (Northwestern), https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/index.php/index/research/seminars?dateRange=past&seriesId=0, Sarah Robinson (UC Santa Barbara), Justin Wiltshire (UC Berkeley), Katherine Rittenhouse (UC San Diego), Christopher Mills (Princeton), Eduardo Medina Cortina (UIUC), Arielle Bernhardt (Harvard), Jenya Kahn-Lang (Berkeley), Katherine Riitenhouse (UCSD), Gina Li (Stanford), Stephanie Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Flynn (MIT), Wang (Stanford), Lu (Stanford), Leombroni (Stanford), Seth (LBS), Singla (LBS), Ptashkina (UPF) Sileo (Georgetown) Gutirrez (Chicago) Chang (Yale) Shen (UCLA) Kohlhepp (UCLA) Cai (Northwestern) Morazzoni (UPF) Wong (Columbia) Carry (CREST) Nimier-David (CREST) Chen (Stanford GSB) Bodr (NYU) Tintelnot (Chicago AP) Beaman (Northwestern AP) Lamadon (Chicago AP) Kang (CMU AP), Risk and Insurance at Wisconsin School of Business, Rao (UCSD), Wiseman (Berkeley ARE), Rexer (Wharton), Giaccobasso (UCLA), Yucheng Yang (Princeton), Sofonias Korsaye (SFI), Matteo Leombroni (Stanford), Yes, 2/05/2023 according to EconTrack (who? 1 R&R round. We got referee rejection in 2.5 months: 2 referees, one favours RR, other rejects. The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. of? 3 months for a desk rejection - no need to comment 4 months until desk reject. Editor was super helpful. 2 rounds of r&r. Poor comments, one paragraph each asking for minor changes but rejected. Not a good experience. Long time to first response and had to chase up editor, but comments were helpful and editor was very engaged in the revision process. 1 reviewer was clearly an expert, 2 others were less thorough than might be expected, one recommended R&R the other did not read the paper was clearly ideologically biased, the editor sided with the latter, Quick process, referees made some good comments, not a bad experience, one positive referee report, one negative referee report. Four RR rounds. After ref rejection at an AEJ submitted here we followed editors suggestion and submitted to JUE. Editor desk rejected after a couple of weeks due to lack of fit. Fast and friendly. Referees did not show good knowledge of the subject. Bugaga! Click here for more information. way too long for a "standard" rejection. Ref report definitely helpful. One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. Good experience overall. One report was very poor and full of bsh*t while the other was good. Slow process (but exactly as advertised) and fair judgment. Mentioned but did not provide reports, just asked for a more policy oriented conclusion, unresponsive to emails. Not a great experience! The other negative and low-quality. We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. Comments very helpful, editors took time to read the paper and were engaged throughout the process. Generic comment of the editor. Very good referee reports. AE rejected without commenting on referee report, At least a quick report with one good comment that can help to improve the paper, but with the other points highlighted by the referee were discussed in the paper. Got accepted after a week. One of the referees helped me structure the paper nicely. From here on, AEJs are the way to go outside top 5. Editorial board apparently liked the paper, but found it not sufficiently related to population economics. It took the referees / editor 5 months to look at my revised script to then just accept it without any further comments. Good experience, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. New editor apologized for the delay and handled the rejection quickly. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. Really smooth process. The saving grace is that it was fast. Accepted after revision within 1 month. The co-editor gave very specific, though difficult requests for the revision. Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. Appreciate quick reject. Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. Reports were not fair but at least fast response. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. Editor claimed that referee is an expert in the field. Reasonable decision. Rather weird outcome but quite quick for a journal of its reputation. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement. The editor didn't bother to read through the lines of my responses to his previous reports to see how incompetent the referee is, or to look at the big picture and account also for the reports of other referees who wrote much more competent reports and had recommended acceptance several rounds earlier. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. Other referee hadn't read the paper at all. Two very helpful reports and encouraging letter from AE. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. Pleasant experience overall. Received two detailed reports, which were reasonably useful. Good experience. Way too slow though. Encouraging and polite comments from editor. 2 very constructive reports, speedy process after resubmission, 2 useless reports by refs who barely skimmed the paper, one completely mistook the tested var & misreported it in his comments, editor's comments (Bill Collins) were smug and obnoxious but shallow, Very disappointing. Not sure why we didn't get desk rejected. We'll see. One rubbish review from a referee who had no idea what the paper was about. Many thanks to the editor for most constructive comments. ", Bad experience: six months to get one report plus a decision letter that looked like a desk rejection (which is ok, but not after 6 months). Avoid that journal. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. **** this journal. Fast Review process. Second round 4 months before acceptance. Transfer from another Elsevier journal. Editor also read the paper and took the call - explained that the paper was better suited at a good field journal given referee assessments of contribution to literature. Victoria Ziqi Hang (U of Washington), Freddie Papazyan (UCSD), Lukas Bolte (Stanford), Christine Szerman (Princeton), Alfonsi (Berkeley), Raghav Malhotra (Warwick), Regina Seibel (Zurich), Philipp Wangner (Toulouse), Anna Vitali (UCL), Morten Grindaker (BI Business School), Tony Fan (Stanford), Elena Ashtari Tafti (UCL), Xiao Shan (Zurich), Andre Sztutman (MIT), Via Twitter: Matranga (Chapman), Barreto (Sciences Po), Coly (PSE), Galvez (Banco de Espaa), Petracchi (Brown), Miglino (UCL), Casella (UPenn), Morzenti (Bocconi), Perdoni (Edinburgh), Possnig (UBC), Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson), Borghesan (Penn), Van der Beck (Swiss Finance Institute and EPFL), Ferey (LMU), Seibel (Zurich), Acquatella (Harvard), D'Adamo (UCL), Vattuone (Warwick), Mugnier (CREST), Decker (Zurich), Morazzoni (UPF), Decker (Zurich), Altmann (Oxford), Jin (BU & CMU), Diegert (Duke), Guigue (CREST), Leroutier (SSE), Ramakrishnan (WUSTL), Souchier (Stanford), Banchio (Stanford GSB), Sullivan (Yale), Acquatella (Harvard), Jin (BU), Diegert (Duke), Herstad (Chicago), Schaner (USC),Gudgeon (West Point), Wiseman (Berkeley), Kochar (USC), Li (MIT Sloan), Ostriker (MIT), Zou (Oregon AP), U.S. Under one month for one very brief report saying not good enough for the journal and a completely indecipherable AE report. More than 16 weeks!! Very fast process. While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal.

Rookie Dynasty Rankings 2022, Smok Scar 18 Battery Door Won't Close, Cartoon Characters That Are Always Scared, Robin Peterson Brother, Articles E