Will never submit to this journal again. Good reasons for rejection; comments improved paper for next submission. Would submit here again now that I know what to expect. Submitted more than 2 months, still shown the status as "under ADM", 5 months first RR, 5 months second RR, 2 weeks final acceptance. Turn down without a single line of comment in both rounds. Will submit here again definitely but hate Elsevier so much. Nice experience. The status are always the same "under review". Very good reports that help us to improve the paper a lot. The editor rejected based on flimsy reasons. paper proposed theory that is quite a substantial departure, so i appreciate the editor's willing to take it on. 2 detailed comments from referees. The AE report made no sense at all, and had very little substance. A black bitch barks at East Europe. I didn't expect an accept here, but I def did not expect to be rejected on the grounds of such poor review reports. Good experience overall. low quality and very short referee report Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text. April 16, 2022. Reminded several times and after waiting 1 year got one referee report. Will submit here again. After two interventions got 1 ridiculous report. The other one, who wanted extra revises, was a bit of stupid. Have emailed for status to no avail. 1 good Referee and good Editor. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience! No referee reports. Report very critical but useful nonetheless. Only quibble is one referee got stuck on a (not applicable) approach and wouldn't let go. happy with outcome. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. The paper was "with the editor". Not for the faint-hearted. Extremely fast. Editor read the paper, added some comments of her own. 1 really excellent, positive report. Split decision. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. Contribution too small. One report very solid and useful, another (two-paragraph one) looks confusing. Helpful comments from the editor. 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. Good overall experience. Reports with no use, in one case even mentioning the need of something that was already done in the paper. Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. Very slow. Very good reports and editor was clear about what were most important points to improve in the revision. 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..". Desk rejection based on lack of fit, altough there were at least 4 papers published on the same topic in previous years. One very grumpy referee report. ref asks more robustness check. One referee report was very detailed. Desk reject within 5 days. Difficulties to reach the editor, but useful report and very fast decision (1 day) after submitted the revised manuscript. Desk rejection after 8 days. Fast desk reject but zero useful information. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. I got the referee reports after 2.5 months from submission. No evidence anyone read the paper, even though they probably have the highest submission fee among econ journals. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. They never refunded my fee either. At least they gave decent feedback. Got accepted after 2nd round. Would submit here again. 1 months for desk reject. Two horribly low quality reports. two positive reports and one strongly negative report; the editor Andrew Street gave me a R&R; after I spent one month writing a 30-page response, the negative referee still argued against my paper based on his misunderstanding of my paper; the editor finally chose to reject my paper based on the comments of this referee without careful reading. Worst experience ever. Excellent ref report. Sounds fair. Signaling. Good experience, Revision accepted by editor within two days after re-submission. Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. Waited 6 months for one report, from which it was clear that the referee hadn't even read the paper properly. Referees ok, not great. Extremely bad experience with this journal. Avoid him. Good referee report and very efficient editor. RR time was only 2 weeks, no bullshit nitpicking. Clearly no effort was put into it. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. Due to a "typographical error" in sending me an email, I had to wait an extra month (and after I emailed asking for a status update) to learn of the rejection - wasting time I could have spent submitting it to another journal. Reports were pretty good. Unprofessional letters, one full of typo and pushed to a no-way-working direction; the other simply was wrong on his/her main comment. Horner is a disaster! Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. Constructive referee report. Boston University Department of Economics. A bit slow but overall a good experience. Yes, last week. 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). Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE. Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. Costas Meghir responses all submissions. HUMAN HELP: The Placement Chair for the 2022-2023 academic year is Professor Ben Handel, handel@berkeley.edu. others ref reports okay. One good report and the other mediocre. Russia was born in Kiev. Overall- great experience. Desk reject in two weeks after submitting a paper. Three short reports. 14 months from submission to publication online. Two useless reports for a paper that has been accepted by another journal of general interest. Good experience. very efficient process but experience depends crucially on editor. 6 months to first response, then a two sentence ref report, one sentence of which was clarified extremely quickly and one that entailed a ton of extra work. Desk rejected, but after consultation with a referee who provided a mini-report. Not belonging to the club implies rejection. Desk rejection in 6 minutes with a "pretended" letter, which could be used for any paper. Excellent comments from MN, good experience for a desk rejection. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. Editor suggested JIE. Says model's too complex then suggests an addition which would have tripled the state space. Rejected in 10 days. Helpful for resubmission somewhere else. Said the paper was to mathematical/econometrical for the journal. Good experience and good editorial team. A lot of small nit-picky criticism and some factually wrong statements about paper. Desk rejection would be normal, but the journal has changed dramatically the orientation towards family firms. Basically got a response on the next working day following a weekend. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. Very nice editor. Editor cites two but only sends one. Editor was very kind. Rare experience where every round made paper much better. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Great experience - referee and editor very helpful. One recommended reject, the other R&R. Rigor of the paper increased greatly because of the refereeing process. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. Helpful referee reports. 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. Very efficient process. Which is BS because paper on the same topic was published a couple of months earlier in EJ. No comments from the editor though. That mean 5 people read my paper? Editor sat for two months on completed referee report and rejected without adding any comments. I waited for seven months, only to receive one superficial referee report. Friendly email from editor, interesting reports from referees. Desk rejected by Sarte in 3 days without comments. In really sped things up. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. The rejection came with a useless referee report. 1 positive and 1 negative report - Editor rejected. Quick (10 days), but useless. No reimburment of submission fee ($130). Standard comments, paper's topic just not good enough. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee. Overall, a very good experience. Avoid Scott Adams. Post an advertisement. Will never submit there again. Would surely submit to it again. Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! Helpful comments from the editor (besides the usual thy shall cite my papers). 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. No BS, great experience! Fair decision. not the fastest experience, but high quality comments from referees and the editor who liked the paper. The Editor Requate cannot distinguish between partial and general equilibrium. But the comments helped. Very good referee reports. Welcome to the Academic Jobs Wiki. To be fair, some of the editors comments were sharp. Editor couldn't find referees, rejected and claimed two reports but only one sent. Job Market | MIT Economics Three very constructive referee reports that help improving the quality of the paper. Report from the Editor. Seems the process is very efficient with the new editorial board, Fantastic experience: fast and very good comments. A very pleasant experience after 5 rounds of really bad reviews. Editor agreed to R&R and suggested major changes but then didn't like the resulting paper. One referee report only. Efficient. The paper is accepted in another journal now. Tough referee was going through three rounds but eventually accepted. One month for the desk reject. Not enough contribution. Very good experience. Very good experience. One useful report and the other less so. Offers and negotiating. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Pretty well run, can't complain. Terrible to treat junior people this way. Referee reports OK. cannot complaint about reports but could have been faster, bad reports, of the type "i don't like it". The other negative and low-quality. We asked to see the reports but the editor did not send them. Nice editor. The third one very general and less useful. Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. Followed up on them, sent it to another journal, and got accepted very quickly. 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. I wonder whether they actually read the document. If you need a fast turnaround, this is not the journal for you! 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). Comments dubious at best. Great feedback from editor, and semi-useful reviews. Overall, very positive experience. from AE, but editor rejected without explanation. Excellent Experience. Two very constructive reports. Editor followed the second report. It is a pity it was rejected, but I appreciate the quick response. Long wait, decision was communicated with a delay of 3 months after reports had been received. Editor clearly read the paper. This Rumors site allows only a maximum of 12 months from submission to decision. Nothing substantial to improve the paper. Overall, great experecience! Still my favorite rejection of all time - used Shakespeare in a footnote, and first referee (whose English was subpar) said that the footnote was "very poorly written." The discussant in the shitty conf gives better comments. The bar is high for Exp Econ. Commented that something we are doing is not correct, while all the papers in the field are doing the same. Referee did not bother to read the paper. Desk rejection in one day by Giovanni Perri. Outcome was fair and reports well done, but waiting time was unacceptable and the editor's lettere extremely poor. Very good comments from both the reviewers and editors. Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. Not sure I'd call it a full referee report, however, and only receiving one report is strange. Rapid desk reject - editor stated paper was rejected because of applied context (sports), Good reports, led to significantly better paper, Good experience, nice though critical editor, total time to acceptance 10 months. Second report little use. Very Fast. 1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. Please add AERi to the combo box. 3 weeks. Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. The report must have been farmed out to some grad student who couldn't write. Ref reports quite useful. Filter by advisor. Editor was super helpful. Nice when they actually read the paper. Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. BTW, "Under review" all the time during the reviewing process, similar to AEA journals (but different from some other journals using manuscript central). Finally very well handled by the editor. Recommend field journals, Useful letter from the editor Dirk Krueger (aprox. Lost more than 6 months for nothing. Editor (Collins) might read the paper, but did not say much. Overall, good experience. Would never submit anything to these people again and would never recommend to anyone else either. Economics Job Market Rumors. Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. Worse experience ever. The editor was not helpful at all. One report was very useful. Our results didn't change. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. One of the best run journals in macro. Will submit there in the future. Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one). Fair points by referees. The editor provided one. no submission fee but fast response and fair referee report. Ref report definitely helpful. William A. Barnett is a very professional editor and reviews were helpful. Drill down into the main traffic drivers in each channel below. The reviewer and the editor did not understand the paper. Though nothing extremely deep, comments were of acceptable quality. Referee only comments on the first half of the paper. Editor was a little bit lazy as it took him two months after receiving the ref report to answer. Second one was about 15 lines. Very complementary and helpful reviews. The referee report was more appropriate for R&R. Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever. The editor (Mallick) gave us some additional advice and was ok with the result. Quick desk reject and no comments of substance (form letter) but no cost of submission. Two helpful referee reports. 20 Feb 2023. for a desk reject with quite boring paragraphs from the editor along the lines why this is not using Angrist-Pischke methods One of the referee reports was very well informed. Agreed that this journal is a joke. complete waste of time, Very nice editor's letter. Desk rejected within 1 week. EJM - Econ Job Market Rejected by editor. Recently Announced. Rejection came on Easter morning. Ridiculous experience. Very unlucky submission: First round Reject and Resubmit. Good experience. One positive, three negative. In 1974, the Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) began printing a periodical, Job Openings for Economists (JOE) (Coles etal. This, of course, is useless. Kathryn spier, the editor, was even more clueless and unable to see that we were right and s(he) was wrong. One report of 10 lines with one minor comment and the other one, longer but with also minor comments. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. Not sure whether it should be called "desk rejection" as the editor said he asked a friend who is an expert in the field to review my paper rather than sending it to referees. Paper was long and too dispersed at first, but the managing editor (Baptista) liked it, and the reviewers asked for changes while being receptive. Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow.
Celebrities From West Midlands,
Kochar Call Center In Amritsar,
Articles E
