Disappointed. is ?so ?poor? reports, the reports were all nice an constructive. City of PhoenixPhoenix - USA, Senior Analyst - Economics Department Replied within a week but editor clearly read the paper and identified main points which, however, seemed not important to him to warrant publication in RES. One highly vauable report; one okay-ish, one less useful. Desk-rejected after ten days. Excellent and helpful comments from both referees and the editor. 2 referees clearly read the paper and made some good and insightful comments. Second was uninformative. Most dishonest rejection. The model is not presented in a clear and intelligible way. A bit long for a short paper, comments were fair and detailed although they pointed the way to an R&R rather than rejection. Had to withdraw after waiting for nearly a year and a half. Great experience overall, Editor decided not to wait for the late referee not to slow down the process. Big lie. Referees lukewarm, Foster took time and effort to explain his decision, also indicated a number of pathways to strengthen the paper. Armstrong is so much better than Hermalin 6 months for the first R&R (2 referee reports plus a very detailed report from the editor), then 3 months for the 2nd R&R, then the paper was accepted. Poor referee. Ridicolous report: 3 lines where the referee asked to address "geopolitical" issues. Long time to edit and format after acceptance. Referees mixed. Modifications responded mainly to the good report. 4 months with the editor before being sent to referees. After waiting for 6 months received one crap report which is absolute garbage! One ref report with extremely constructive criticisms. 2 pretty decent referee reports.Of course one said "the quality of the model and empirical evidence is below the standards for a journal like the QJE. Not so much from the Associate Editor. Getting a reference to AEJ Applied was worth it. The third referee recommended acceptance, but the editor rejected. Couple of comments why the paper does not fit (relatively reasonable). the ?author? Our paper went through four rounds and finally accepted after one year of its submission. Research Assistant (Pre-Doc) Law and Economics. Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE. Silly comments from AE. Editor said all refs must agree for acceptance but only one ref report provided! Never submit again. This? The editor, Gideon Saar, was lazy and did not read the paper. I will never submit these bullshits to the editor who trusts me. One useless referee report claiming that we did not make robustness checks in a journal of 2000 letters! (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.). 6 months for useless reports. One helpful (though very demanding) report, the second so-so. Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. View Board. Extremely fast and thoughtful. Referees didn't read the article properly! After revise and resubmit, was rejected, Next year, similar article appeared in the journal authored by one of the associate editors. I sent off the revision less than 24 hours after the R&R. After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. Good experience. While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. One referee suggested R and R. Other referee rejected (AE and DE supported this). Initially submitted on 2 Aug, we got the rejection six month later. Editor was insufficient in evaluating our paper and rejected it due to a paper cited in the reference list! Reports were sound and improved the paper substantially. Very easy suggested an appropriate transfer and levied the submission fees, with editor providing quite helpful comments. Note that the shorter the time span considered, the more likely the ranking is going to be spurious. Journal. Efficient and professional. Will definitely send again. Katia Meggiorin. Very good handling of the process. Fast decision after resubmit. But the decision was unfair. Just thoroughly unprofessional report. Very good experience. Avoid Scott Adams. Contact: hyejin -dot- park -at . The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. Notice that I submitted there on the basis of the widely publicized (EEA Gothenburg) fastness of this journal. Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. great reviews and useful comments for ref, only 1 referee report 3 sentences long by reviewer who did not read the paper, Good reports but very slow to get a rejection. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. Comments were helpful. awful experience. Three rounds: one major + two minor (the last one being really minor, like copy-editing and missing references minor). 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. Suggested a field journal, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Editor rejected based on that. Long wait, decision was communicated with a delay of 3 months after reports had been received. Might submit again, a little disappointed that they didn't try to get it reviewed. Desk reject in 7 days. It is run by "Kirk", [2] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. Editor followed the referees suggestion, though with his own view on the paper. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Desk rejected, but after consultation with a referee who provided a mini-report. Editor rejected. Pretty fast, the reports are good. Great experience. One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). Weird editor pushing for a change in the results. Extremely poor experience for a journal charging submission fees. Letter gives no mention of reasons for rejection and even unclear on paper's final status. The referees responded very quickly and with excellent, high quality reports. Submission is waste of time. 1 good, 1 okay and one bad review. (As we've seen, courtesy of Raj Chetty and Diamond/Mirrlees, sometimes they split your paper and accept.). candidates received letter saying search now closed- did anyone get the position? Bad Experience. Worst experience ever. Anti-intellectual reasoning. Editor's letter mentioned a 2-1 split in favor of rejection, so she rejected. One positive and one negative. One referee was thoughtful and recommended acceptance; Second referee asked for more results; AE agreed with the 1st referee. Special issue editor started to referee himself. Editor decided to reject because he could only find one person to review. Constructive referee report. Apparent that editor read the paper. One not very helpful/professional report. I had to contact the Editor after 2 months of seeing no change in status on my manuscript. He suspects he could not understand a yota. Recommended a more specialized journal to try next. Katz voted to reject. Poor targeting on my part. Good report. Quick turnaround. The referees should be (far) better than the illiterate idiot they gave me! 5 weeks to first response. Entire process takes 1 month. multiple rounds, one of round took about a year. One useful report out of three. Editor (Taylor) gave additional advice. Split recommendations, editor decided to reject which is fair enough. Quite upsetting. great experience. Would submit again. Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. 1 referee report after 1 year, referee did not like the idea, editor Pok-sang Lam. Withdrew July 31, 2017. This is expected as I am not part of the editor's inner circle. he clearly read the paper. Not sure I'll ever submit something to RED again. The paper was under minor revisions. In the first three, the referees took 3 months and tehn 9 months to take care of comments. SVAT is a full service firm in the areas of bookkeeping, accounting, tax and small . Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. Excellent referee reports, with useful input from the editor (Auerbach) regarding how to handle them. one week to accepted with minor changes. Fast desk reject. I suspect either grad students or people outside of the field. Good referee reports. The AEA provides a guide to the job market process created by John Cawley. Very disappointing experience. We made almost all of the changes required by the referees and the editor accepted it. Referred to field, seems editor at least scanned and maybe even read the whole thing. Very good comments even if he slightly misunderstood the contribution. Overall good experience. Until the 1970s, junior economics hiring was largely by word of mouth. Very quick handling but refereeing quality just absurd. 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. It appears they don't like overly technical papers (it's an interdisciplinary journal so depends on who the editor is at the time - if not an economist, then avoid). 2 informed reports + very detailed comments and guidance by the AE. I submitted two papers and both took a very long time to get referee comments from and the sets of referee comments read like they were written by undergraduate students. Made paper better. Not good enough for general interest. Shame on Co-Editor. Super fast process than I had expected. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. I received an answer of the editor after 2 months. Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days. 2 referees were positive throughout the process, one was an outright acceptance. 1 very good referee report, 1 OK, 1 pretty bad (revealing that the referee was clearly a non-economist). Although I withdrew my article, editor sent me a rejection letter in a very rude manner. Very efficiently run journal (at least my experience). Job Market. To view archived listings in this job market cycle that are now inactive, check this box View listings from the previous (August 1, 2022 - January 31, 2023) JOE cycle. Harold Cole was excellent as editor. The editor clearly had a look at least at the introduction and gave encouraging comments. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. Despite disappointing turnout, reports were good with useful and specific suggestions on ways to improve the paper. The paper was accepted after one round of submission. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. A forum for economists to discuss economics, economics jobs, conferences, journals and more. 2 days to get a desk rejection. The other referee was serious however. One decent, the other sloppy. Took 6 months for first reply (ref reject); 1 referee critical but fair, the other one very critical but didn't read the paper carefully. Only have issues with one of the reviewers. very good experience and fast acceptance after addressing referees' comments. 6 weeks for a desk reject w/o any explanation. I wish my coauthors would not be too sad being rejected. R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. Will submit again. Some comments from the editor, some are useful. I suspect whether Penny Goldberg is competent. Really good experience, good comments and moved quickly through the process. Every time I'm impressed by how precise the reviews and suggestions are. It took six months for a single referee report (of exactly one paragraph of comments). Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff. Rather weird outcome but quite quick for a journal of its reputation. In 1974, the Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) began printing a periodical, Job Openings for Economists (JOE) (Coles etal. (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Desk reject after two weeks. the journal is recovering. the editor was helpful and nice though. Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. Rather uninformative feedback: feeling that it is not suitable for publication and unlikely to be favorably reviewed. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. Editor recommended field journal submission. Polite / nice email from Editor. Very efficient editorial process by Ken West. One excellent and detailed (5pages) referee report which helped a lot in revising the paper to a much higher level. Soon it became like a bar that doesn't kick out any assholes and now its a collection of assholes who happen to do economics. Helpful reports, overall good experience. Referee did not bother to read the paper. Second decision took 2.5 months. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. Quick rejection (Canova, 5 days), professional, very acceptable decision. Editor (Rogerson) makes some encouraging comments but cannot hide the fact that the referees were not really that enthusiastic about the paper, even if they couldn't find much to criticize. The editor suggested to try a more mainstream Public Finance journal (I think may paper could have fit Public Choice but fair enough I will try another Public Finance journal). Quick response within three days. Desk rejected, one sentence given. I expected better from this journal. It took 5 months to get a desk reject, with a polite letter from the editor that the paper would be a good fit for a field journal. 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. 5 months for a desk reject! American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. Dest rejected in three days. Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. Your paper is not fit for public choice try with public economics. Slow moving. Very fast rounds with very insightful and reasonable referee reports and suggestions by the editor. Will submit here again. Editor was fair, his decision was understandble, but 6 months is clearly too long. Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. Extremely poor experience. "Scope a bit too narrow" for Economica. Good experience. Horrible editorial process. 1: 1: We have moved! fair and efficient process. Most inefficient handling ever. It took too long, I do not know if I would submit there again. Long process but well worth it! Note that since the editor(Batten) is handling many different journals at the same time, you should expect relatively slow turnaround time. Weird decision as the paper was not far from being accepted at a better journal. Report from the Editor. Rejected for arbitrary reasons. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. Very complementary and helpful reviews. Rejected with 2 reviews on the grounds of insufficient contribution to literature. Per editor, not good fit for IO bent of the journal, not broad enough for general interest journal. Recently Announced. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. No reports provided, but editor made brief helpful comments. No comments from the editor though. Referee told to write another paper instead. Referees didn't get the point of the paper, my fault. Referee failed to upload report. JFM is bad! Refs gave some okay minor comments but no big, subtantive critiques. Bugaga! Bigger joke than the article I sent them. Conveyed no sense at all that anyone even looked at the paper. End of story. Poor quality single report. An Associate Editor clearly read the paper. Almost zero substantive comments on the technical part and not surprising that it was sloppy handling given that it was Pop-Eliches who was the co-editor. Quick first response with major r&r. 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. Expensive but quick. The referee must be some leading scholar in the field and I just wanna say thanks to him/her. Not sure what the editor(s) are doing at this journal but whatever it is, it is not quality overseeing and editing of papers. Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. Got the refund soon after request. The AE's letter was useful, although no suggestion what to try next. It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. Great experience. Advisor: Prof. Caterina Calsamiglia. Not a r, Contribution: Single country Sample and OLS production, International Review of Law and Economics, very helpful comments which improved the quality of the paper; time between resubmit and acceptance: 6 days! Job Market. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. Overall, pretty speedy given my submission coincided with end of year grading season and winter holidays in the US. 1 suggested r&r other reject, AE decided to reject--fair decision. Fantastic experience (accepted first round), Directly accepted within one month. Editor is a insecure joke. Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. Ridiculous. The referee had a chip on their shoulder and the editor stepped in. One referee report---which is actually better than any report ever received with this paper (including those from RFS, JFQA, and MS). 3 years for a desk rejection, after sending them at least 6 emails and filing a complain with the publisher. In really sped things up. Good comments. After pressing four times, they told me it was out for review. Overall very good quality of reports and very helpful guidance from the editor. "Thank you for your paper. Quite fast luckily. Two sloppy reports, one useful. Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that! Thorough review. Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! This was high risk but of course at the end worth it because it is a good journal. Would surely submit to it again. One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. Decent reports highlighting different issues, mostly sympathetic, but tough. Economics, Tenured/Tenure-track Advertiser: Various departments, New York University Shanghai Field(s) of specialization: Econometrics - Microeconomics one so-so report and one excellent report, Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics. Well-run journal. Desk rejected in two weeks. Comments by R1 were helpful, but 100+ days for 1 report is too long. Good comments from 2 referees, the other did not appear to have read the paper well. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. No flyouts yet. Received two referee reports and a review from the associate editor within two months of initial submission. Home. So-so experience. Reports were not very helpful. The editor read the paper and provided useful advice on how to improve it. Same referee takes about half an hour to conclude the math is wrong, yet takes 5 months to submit his report. I was worried about the wait, but in the end got a very good editorial letter (from Reis) with great suggestions. Desk reject after 3 days. Where would you rank Michigan/Ross finance now? Managing the academic job market. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so." Receive desk rejection in 24 hours, editor read the paper and suggested to top field journal. Rejected because topic did not fit the journal. Took 6 weeks. 18 days, no indication that either adstract or paper was read. The positive report points out more contributions than we claim. Tough referee was going through three rounds but eventually accepted. Would submit here again now that I know what to expect. Overall very fast process. Low quality referee reports. Very poor referee reports. Third referee was slow and did not provide public report (he caused the delay). Fast desk reject, no substantial comments. Chat (0) Conferences. No BS, great experience! Great experience! Bad to useless reports after a longish delay. Terrible editor. Job Market. good reports; excellent editor who acts like an additional referee. Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. Did get a field journal suggestion and a refund of submission fees. He might have read the abstract--clearly doesn't know the literature enough to see the contribution. Very quick response. No meaningful comments. Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response. Editor wrote half a page and was polite. Quick turnaround time for the first R&R, but very slow for the last round. In case of desk rejection, they should return the submission fee. They said they could not find reviewers. The referee did not read the first sentence of the paper and was not familiar with the literature. About 10 weeks from submission to referee reject. Editor was a bit harsh. Next time, I will come back with a vip or friend of the editorial team to have positive a priori. 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. Desk rejection in 3 days. Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. One refree report who made very useful comments that helped significantly improve the paper. Within a week, Laura Schechter clearly went through the paper and give it a thought with a couple of helpfull comments. Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. Both referees read the paper, one of them even found some mistake in the proof. Less than two months for very minor revision request. 1 referree was critical, but offered great suggestions, other 2 were mediocre at best. Bad experience. Boilerplate "contribution not significant enough", two months pretty long for a desk reject, but can't really complain about the desk reject itself because the paper is not so great. Fast and clean. Withdrew article from consideration after 18 months of wait. Pretty smooth process, with Eric Leeper being very kind and helpful. Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic. Ultimately fair. 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. Quite annoyed at this journal - AE provided verbatim the referee rejection from another submission journal from three months prior. Editor did not catch these oversights. Boo! The referee report was very poor. 3 weeks for a desk reject. Portuguese Economic Journal* Great process. Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. Very useful suggestions by the editor who read the paper carefully. Encouraging words from editor, good experience. Please post listings by subject area.
Type 1 Hypervisor Vulnerabilities,
Ante Mortem Cladem Translation,
Mckennaii Grow Kit Uk,
Indooroopilly Library Jp,
Murchison Family Net Worth,
Articles E