Grand Junction To Phoenix Driving, Rustica Bakery Christchurch, Articles E

Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small). Decent experience; overall fast, fair and constructive. One of the worst experience I have ever had. Waste of time, Ok process, but referees either did not read the paper carefully or were inexpert in the field, Referee does not understand the purpose of the paper, clearly not a specialist of the field ; published elsewhere. Very good reports. Editor cites two but only sends one. Recommended. What can i say more? One referee does not follow simple math, immediately assumes the model is wrong and the editor takes his side. Was not worth waiting that long (this is an understatement). 11 months for a rejection. Editor desk rejected based on the identification strategy in the abstract, and clearly did not read the paper. Editor letter saying that what we do is not so new. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. Extremely fast and thoughtful. The report was substantive and some comments were helpful, though there was only one of them. Very fast process. The other referee was concerned about the limitations of the identification strategy, but the same strategy has been used in other studies (some are in top field journals). Maybe small sample made it untouchable? Desk reject within a few days. Editor Chandra rejected with one ref report. I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The referee reports were fairly good. Based on the large volume of submissions we receive bla bla, Unfathomably long time to first decision, referee comments impleid the paper was not read diligently, despite being just 4-5 pages. Unbelievably fast and helpful. Very quick desk reject. No comment from the editor, 1 referee report by an idiot that just filled three pages with garbage to look like a better referee; other report was better but still not nearly as smart as QJE referees. Less than 2 months for the decision with 2 reports, which is very quick. Old fashined. Unacceptable waiting time. Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. My paper was a comment, so I consider this pretty slow. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1 very useful report and associate editor comments. Would submit again. Very unlucky submission: First round Reject and Resubmit. Desk reject in 7 days. Good experience. I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided. paper rejected after one round of R&R due to extremely negative attitude of the one referee. 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. Efficient. However, it was relatively fast at least. Glad that they didn't waste my time. Long wait though. No further comment from the editor. 1 week: nice, but no fit with general interest. Great experience. Difficulties to reach the editor, but useful report and very fast decision (1 day) after submitted the revised manuscript. Five weeks "with editor" to a boilerplate desk reject, then they asked me to applaud them for a "speedy decision.". Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. One positive, three negative. Resulted in much better paper. 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. Referee comments were pretty minor. Terrible experience. In print a couple of weeks later. Very professionalthe referee reports were fine but rather tough given the quality of the journal, 3 rounds, all comments addressed, rejected because 1 reviewer did not read the last version. No evidence anyone read the paper, even though they probably have the highest submission fee among econ journals. Unfortunately paper was assigned to handling editor who was on study leave. The status are always the same "under review". Do not submit there. Referee said he just didn't like the paper. Very bad reports. Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. Editor uninterested. Website | CV Some reviewers disappeared after the first review, the editors could't even find an alternative, and the comments were not assessed critically by the editors due to an editorial change. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. The second one is ok, but rejects for some peculiar reasons. Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. Signaling. Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. One very thorough that discussed on every paper point.Good experience, out of scope for this journal, although the most cited paper in this journal also addresses the same research problem, Bad experience. A forum for economists to discuss economics, economics jobs, conferences, journals and more. SIX MONTHS for a desk reject. One of them was very detailed. After two interventions got 1 ridiculous report. "We are hesitant to publish purely empirical papers" comment could have been boilerplate but seemed uninformative, Exceptionally quick turnaround times. My impression is that the editor didn't even bother looking at the paper. Editor was Nielsen. 8 months after submission, an in-depth and articulated referee report with many comments. Too us more than a month to revise and still had doubts. Contacted them, told me they will try to send it out to reviewers. Editor suggested field journal. The editor rejected the manuscript without any useful comments. April 16, 2022. Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. 1 paragraph of superficial non-descriptive comments from each ref, One week to desk reject with no comment at all. Desk reject in 1 week. Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. Two very good reports, one probably written by the editor. No letter from the editor. I understand there is variability in this process, but it was a terrible experience. Editor delayed a lot. New . Will submit again.. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. Very efficient, good reports. Slow. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. Two entirely reasonable reports. Editor and referees seemed willing to listen to reason which encouraged me to work hard on the revision and make my case when I thought reports misguided. apologize.? Horrible. Fast review but very difficult comments. The referees made good points. ), Vienna University of Economics and Business, Ceccarelli (Zurich/Maastricht), Pitkjrvi (Aalto), Assistant Professor in Labor, Migration, and Racial Capitalism, Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario), Gallant (Toronto), Sullivan (Yale), Cui (UPenn), Choi (Wisconsin-Madison), Kahou (UBC), Hentall-MacCuish (UCL), Babalievsky (minnesota), Moszkowski (Harvard), Hong (Wisconsin-Madison), Pan (UT Austin), McCrary (UPenn), Gutierrez (University of Chicago), Kwon (Cornell), Zillessen (Oxford), Ba (UPenn), Assistant, Advanced Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor of Economics, E0 -- General F3 -- International Finance F4 -- Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Fin. Thought already in literature. Less than two months for very minor revision request. Not even one comment. Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. Good experience overall, only took 2 weeks, two short reports, one very useful. Desk rejected in one day. so,? All are lengthy and constructive. Rejected in 10 days with no comments. Very good referees. Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality. Desk reject due to lack of scope of the manuscript, Rejected for a lack of contribution. No reason given. Second round 4 months before acceptance. Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. The referee seems like a first year PhD student who struggled with the notion of left tails. 2nd bad experience for me with this journal. Good comments, helped improve the paper. Otherwise, efficient process, decent reports. My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. But I'm not in any club and not at an elite school (by choice). Paper was internally valid-(ish) but not a big enough contribution. 1 R&R round. desk rejection in 2 weeks. Good experience. desk rejected in 3 days. Simply put, the reviewer does not believe in my results (simulations from calibrated macroeconomic model). Answer (1 of 10): I would highly recommend UChicago for you. Kicker: next day got an email to renew my CEA membership to be able to keep submitting to CJE! 2 minutes passed between receiving editor name an receiving desk rejection. Disappointing as paper got some fine ref reports in another top journal and revised. Good report. Not belonging to the club implies rejection. 10 days in total!!! One short and one longer report. Great experience - referee reports really helped improve the paper. The discussant in the shitty conf gives better comments. In-depth, high quality referee reports. Really involved editor and a referee who suggested changes that, while complex, were easy to deal with. Very useful suggestions by the editor who read the paper carefully. Referee report was ready within a month after submission. One extremely thorough and helpful report, one shorter but still raising valid points. Revision accepted for publication in one week. Good report with relevant comments which will be useful if publication of this study is pursued further. One decent report. Very smooth process. Very inefficient handling of the work. Editor was insufficient in evaluating our paper and rejected it due to a paper cited in the reference list! Avoid at all costs, International Review of Economics and Finance. High quality, detailed ref. Sometime he asks for favours from authors such as finding sponsors for special issues for other journals such as Emerging Markets Finance and Trade or ask authors to organise conferences and use the proceeding to cover the cost of the special issues. One positive report, one mixed and one negative. Will not consider again. Very professional editors. Ridicolous report: 3 lines where the referee asked to address "geopolitical" issues. The referee also pretended that I did not develop a two-sided hypothesis (comment like "why didn't the author think of this? Have they done first-round interviews? Six weeks for response. Very clubby journal. I love this journal. We were asked to collect additional data for our existing experimental treatments to increase our statistical power. Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! 2 weeks). Referees obviously did not read the paper. In a word, this is not a serious journal. Same referee as for a previous submission to a high-ranked journal. They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. 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. Excellent desk reject by Larry S. Recommended a field journal by the editor. 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.. Probably just a grad student who could only understand calculations. Pleasant first publication experience. Desk reject in two days for not being general enough, $132 fee not refunded. 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 . After 6 months I got an extremely low quality report; looked like the reviewer had no idea about the paper or even the field in general. One is very productive while the other is suck. No feedback at all. Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. Letter from the editor not so much informative. Efficient. Rather short reports for waiting 6 months. Encouraging words from editor, good experience. Fast turnover. I dont care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. 3rd round 1 month and then accepted. Editor is very efficient and professional. reject after 3 months. Pretty useless referee reports. only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. He/she also asked unrelated information such as why the market offer two similar contracts, which is not the scope of the study. 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. Ref Reports: I'd say one okay, the other so-so. 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. Referred to field, seems editor at least scanned and maybe even read the whole thing. Editor decided based on 1 report. 8 days to desk rejection. decent referee reports, overall good experience. 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. So despite I got a rejection, the experience is actually not that bad. desk rejection within 1 week. I withdrew the manuscript and will never submit here again. However, once the paper was assigned to referees, the speed was normal. End of story. Waste of time. Fast and uninformative. Very happy with the editorial process. Heckman handled paper. R&r from the editor with major changes suggested by one referee and the urge to strongly orientate the paper towrds one of her (editor) papers. Some good comments from referees, overall a good experience. The editor talked about 4 ref reports. Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). Will submit here again. Good reports that were specific and helpful. The other referee was serious however. Two thoughtful refs, one clueless. Two sloppy reports, one useful. 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 ! very good experience and fast acceptance after addressing referees' comments. 2 referee reports: 1 so-so and 1 extremely shitty. Two very poor referee reports. First report provided helpful insights, second - only half page of general comments. Expected at least some referee reports but got a bad match editor-wise. good reports, great editor who replies promptly to queries. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. Journal response was quick. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. No comments about the paper itself. Decent referee reports, good turnaround time. Great letter from Nezih G and two good referee reports. Good experience. The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. I don't know what to add. Referee reports were very good, constructive and tough. Fast and clean. Both reports were very shorts (one was just a few lines). Referee reject after more than a year. Quick acceptance after revision. Received 2 very nice and 1 okay-ish report. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. editor(s) provided good comments too. It has had it uses as a source of gossip but it accumulated the worst of any group of mostly 20 something American men. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. 6 months for useless reports. Very bad experience. Fair enough reasons why, but would have appreciated less time. Useless comments. Editor handled the paper well. a? Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). 50% of Americans believe US should support Ukraine 'as long as it takes Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Terribly run journal. One positive report, one negative. Quite annoyed at this journal - AE provided verbatim the referee rejection from another submission journal from three months prior. One Referee wrote nonsense, the other was good, the editor added nonsense. One very low quality. Two weeks desk reject. A complete discrage. Referee reports were of high quality. No reply to my e-mail. Only one referee report in 11 months? A bit of wait but ok for econ standards. Helpful referee reports. Horrible! A five pages fantasy report written by a phd-student who did not read the paper. Avoid this shitty journal. Will not b submitting here again until editorial board changes. Extremely efficient. Editor response, not a fit to the journal, too theory! Two weeks for R&R. half a page report. Waited 13 months to two mildly positive reports. Extremely outdated econometric "suggestions" and an overall lack of understanding. Some feasible and some not feasible suggestions. 19 Jul 2023. 2 good, one grumpy referee report. Mark Ramseyer. 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. Eight weeks to get two very high-quality reports. Did get a field journal suggestion and a refund of submission fees. The editor was quick and helpful. He further suggested an exercise that was already illustrated in 2 figures, 1 table and described in the text! Job Market | Department of Economics | Virginia Tech Poorly managed journal. The Editor Requate cannot distinguish between partial and general equilibrium. Super fast process than I had expected. 20 months for this type of journal is super long. Several rounds of mildly encouraging R&R reports, then paper was lost. Referee reports were very brief and contained little in the way of substantive comments. Fast and fair. Referee one was inexpert in the field, and suggested we cite mostly irrelevant papers published by the handling editor. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. Submission to a special issue. Very quick and professional editing. 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. One useful report and the other less so. No complaints. Garbage. First response was very good (and positive), still there was a long waiting afterwards. Excellent experience, the editor was clear on what is required after first round RR. They did not send an offer last year either. Taburet (LSE), Leombroni (Stanford), Puglisi (Northwestern), Wangner (TSE), Qiu (Pennsylvania), Morazzoni (UPF), Charles (USC), Hurtado (Chicago Booth), Nord (EUI), van der Beck (Lausanne), Monteiro (Northwestern), Gutierrez (Chicago), Senior Economist (Forecasting and Policy Modelling). Received the standard 50% fee refund (wow, so useful), Generic desk reject w/o further information, Desk rejected after about 1 month. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. Two years later still waiting for referee reports. After waiting for 6 months, I sent a polite email to the editor asking if the paper fell through the cracks. Not recommended. In hindsight, submitted the paper too prematurely. 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. Rejected on grounds of the paper not "establishing a new set of empirical facts that theory must confront" (Eric Leeper). Economics Job Market. San Jose, CA. Suggested a field journal, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Very good referee reports and useful suggestions from the AE, 1 very good referee report, 1 completely useless. One detailed report. Wilson inform me, on average, EI first decision is in 67 days, but my six months delay is not due to neglect (YEAH RIGHT! Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. One very good report, the other average-to-good. I contacted the journal about that but no response. Accepted 1 1/2 weeks after revision was submitted. Rejected at ECMA, told a great fit at ReSTAT, desk rejected with generic letter after two days (and I'm in the club), 2.5 months for a desk reject with no feedback (labor paper). very rigorous comments. Editor read paper and gave good comments, but ultimately rejected. Special call. Fair editor. very thorough with helpful suggestions for revision. Much better than overal reputation of journal. Two weak reports. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. Helpful comments from reviewer and editor. Giles is a great editor. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. Ok experience. The journal is likely to go up again. Horrible process. Then why are we doing all this work?! Rubbish report ! Costas Meghir responses all submissions. Very good experience. He had nothing but praise for it and offered good suggestions. Referee report transformed the paper significantly. Emailed twice to ask about status and no decency of even replying. 2 quick rounds of R&R. Available November 2022 for positions in Summer/Fall 2023. Referee reports were lenthy and very useful. Fairly standard rejection letter, not general enough. Helpful comments. 1 useless report, and second was useful report. Referee told to write another paper instead. No complains. Good experience. Desk rejection within two weeks. 7 months for two very low quality reports. If you don't like my paper then desk reject the first time, and don't ask me to resubmit! High quality reports and useful comments from the editor. Great process, fortunate to make it past desk as LRM grad student, very helpful ref report received 8 days after submission. The editor received the report within a month. Very efficiently run journal. Clearly there were 2 initial refs: 1 suggested R&R, the other suggested rejection. Comments were useful and recommended a tier of journal to try next. 10 days for desk rejection decision. awful reportreferee asked "why is this a problem?". I got two rounds of R&R. (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Although the referee comments were in detail some of them were really out of the scope. Could have been more lucky with referees, but at least it was very efficient. Only one report. 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). Both referees have good understanding of the topic. May 2019 - Post-doc, Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at Virginia Tech Carilion, Roanoke, VA. Spring 2020 - Nanjing Audit University, Gulou, Nanjing, China. Desk rejected with short but informative comment within 2 days. ", Editor had serious problems in getting referee reports although on this topic there should have been at least 20 potential referees. One referee openly mentioned s/he doesnt like the method used in the paper. Desk rejection by QJE does not convey the quality of the paper. One very good report, one OK. One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal. 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). Extremely poor experience for a journal charging submission fees. Desk reject after one month, no comments just standard letter, Quick rejection (12 days), with no comments on the paper, Rodrik rejected 10 days after submission, advised a field journal.