The editor did put more weight on the negative one. Revision accepted for publication in one week. Submission fee refund. Ref2 was not. This journal has published MANY papers using these methods and policy makers regularly fund these methods. One report very solid and useful, another (two-paragraph one) looks confusing. No negative comments from referees on the substance, but one referee just didn't like it. 10 days in total!!! Reflects really poorly on the journal to keep this guy. I got the referee reports after 2.5 months from submission. It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. Came back with a reject, but reports were at least somewhat useful. Editor had different opinion. Editor skimmed it at best and decided to reject without comments. I pulled the paper and send it elsewhere. Very quick route to getting useful reports. Also the editor gave us good comments. desk rejected in 3 days. Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. Unanswered letters to editor by the 6th and 12th months after submission, only got reply after getting in touch to editorial office. When we chased, we received detailed referee reports and R&R quickly, but were given just 2 weeks to make massive changes to the paper - we withdrew and used comments to publish elsewhere. It is a pity it was rejected, but I appreciate the quick response. Fair rejection. Comments are not useful at all. Editor agreed to R&R and suggested major changes but then didn't like the resulting paper. So-so experience. EJM - Econ Job Market Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. Good comments, helped improve the paper. Very mixed report quality. The AE report made no sense at all, and had very little substance. Desk reject due to lack of scope of the manuscript, Rejected for a lack of contribution. The process had only one negative side; the reviewers implicitly asked to cite their works. Editor chose to follow the suggestion of the AE. Worst experience, A very very slow journal. Charging for this should be a crime. Fair process and good report. $100 fee refunded. I withdrew the paper. Referee comments greatly improved the paper, editor was awesome. Withdrew my paper after 8 months of no contact from Editor, referee, etc. Two referees. Editor obviously read the paper and had great comments. Very slow and no much reason given for desk rejection. Drop the "Economics." Just "Job Market Rumors." One rubbish review from a referee who had no idea what the paper was about. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. Waste of time. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. Nothing that could not be fixed in 2 days, still reject. 1 short report (but good points) and 1 very long report. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. Awesome experience. Poor report! Summary understated contribution of the paper making it looking boring. Editor rejected, but I have a feeling that both refs recommended R&R for different reasons. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. Excellent process. It seems from this website that this in not uncommon for this journal. Tough, but fair referees. Good referees but long process: 3 rounds /16 months, Very hard to respond but comments significantly improved the paper, Took a long time, but referee reports were very useful and significantly improved the paper. REHO is a scam, not a journal. Suggested to submit to a good journal. The editor said there was issues with finding referees. When pressed, editor said we weren't doing the same things as everyone else. Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work.". Referee clearly did not read paper closely because the bulk of his (limited) comments focused on why I don't address an issue that is addressed prominently in the introduction. contribution is not enough. One of those cases where the paper though rejected improved significantly as a result. Two referee reports; one high quality, one very low quality. Fast and serious journal. The senior is useless as s/he was not happy that the paper is against an established theory. Very disappointing experience with the journal and refereeing process. Would choose again. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. Apply for Market Access Asia region manager job with HPE in Taipei, Taipei City, 11568. Had wait for the first response awfully long. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. Helpful comments from reviewer and editor. Comments didn't make sense. Technical issues handled by non-experts. Very fast. Perhaps the worst experience ever. Not enough of a contribution for JPE, suggested AEJs. Waited 6 months for one report, from which it was clear that the referee hadn't even read the paper properly. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. Unacceptable waiting time. 6 months for useless reports. Paper too good for their journal. Couple of comments why the paper does not fit (relatively reasonable). Constructive referee report. Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Economics of Food Consumption and Distribution. Nothing that indicated they read the paper or even seriously considered it. That is not cool. Will not submit again. Just stay away! He even signed the letter. Research Interests : Digital Platforms & Society, Regulatory Uncertainty on Digital Platforms. Comments were helpful. One very useful report from a critical referee, and one mediocre. Both referees read the paper, one of them even found some mistake in the proof. Editor did not even read the paper correctly. Too slow for a short paper, AE spent 4+ months to write very short and useless report. Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality. Insightful comments by both referees and editor. Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. Depressing experience. Outright accept after first resubmission still came as a surprise given JIE typically has 2-3 rounds. I withdrew the manuscript and will never submit here again. Quick, professional, very acceptable decision. Arizona School Board rejects hiring teachers with Christian values: What is the best country currently to live in? 2-pages report, few suggestions. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Good experience as far as rejections go. Average Quality R-Reports, one missed one has good comments. Checked status online after a month to see the outcome. Market Design; Organizational Economics; Personnel Economics; Race and Stratification in the Economy; Risks of Financial Institutions ; Urban Economics; . Although QJE may be one of the oldest professional journal of economics published in the English language, it is also stale. 1 good report and 1 not so good. Editor was kindly respond my email after 6 months, informed me that referees did not respond even after emailing them. Considered waste of time here. Won't be doing that again Actually, it was a Reject and Resubmit because the editor liked the paper, but the reviewer was really harsh and not really understood the paper. Delays related to second reviewer. I am a macroeconomist specialized in economic growth and macro labor. Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. Less than 3 weeks for the first responses (major R&R) then accepted in less than a week. Oh well. I am not sure the referee knows the topic area well enough. I don't necessarily disagree with the editor's assessment, but was surprised at the low-quality of the referee report. Deadline: 2023-03-06. The referee's main criticism was like "they argued that A is the main point, which is weak. 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 . One reviewer was ok after the first R&R. I will never submit there again, Excellent and constructive reports. Harrington and the anonymous reviewer. Overall good experience. 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. Very useful comments. That was disappointing. Still, I lost 7 months overall. Good overall experience. Very disappointing to have no word on a paper that got R&R with minor revisions in a similar ranked journal half a year later, Desk rejection after three months, editor apologized for delay, Desk accepted, sent to R&R for less than a month. The editor's letter was well-written. I wrote the editor but nothing changed. Two reports. 2 weeks for 2 high quality ref reports. Not easy - but straightforward. Polite letter from Bekaert. Good handling by the editor (Reis). Very pleasant experience. Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. Waste of money. Very good experience. Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper. 3 week desk reject. Tough but receptive referees. 1 serious person pushing his method. Incredibly tough process with three rounds of revisions - first round ended up me writing a response as long as the original paper. No specfic comment on the paper. After ref rejection at an AEJ submitted here we followed editors suggestion and submitted to JUE. Fair editor. Round 2 also yielded good referee reports too. Market Access Asia region manager in Taipei, Taipei City, 11568 Thoughtful comments from the referees and the editor. Amazing experience. Referee reports complete crap. quick. Seven months at least the reports where good. Referee process could be streamlined (take too long), but overall a good experience. R&R was helpful. Mostly decent reports raising fair points, OK experience. The co-editor was very efficient and apparently read the paper. Paper got desk rejected shortly after. Pok Sang Lam rejected with few comments. One seems to be written by a first-year bachelor student. Thanks for quick decision. 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 time to response is not long as well. The other reviewer I suspect of being a graduate student with not so good comments. the job market for junior economists. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. The editor rejected the manuscript without any useful comments. Monica Singhal handled the submission within a bit less than 2 months, and takes time to give a detailed opinion on the paper, impresive! Desk rejected within 10 days because the topic was not fit to the journal (it may have been a reasonable response given the topic). 5 months before the editor could take the time to look at the paper. Very good experience, Good experience. He/she states that a particular model delivers a set of results, although I show that it does not. University of Sheffield. 7 months for 1 decent report and 1 poor report. Bad experience overall. The editor is very good with excellent referee reports. In-depth argumentation why there is no sufficient progress compared to common wisdom. Neither referee is hostile. First experience with this journal. However, it seems the process is one editor first decide whether to send to referee or not but a second editor makes the final decision (William Kerr)? At least the turnaround was quick. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Close callEditor gave the benefit-of-a-doubt and requested revisions, one good referee, the other not very good, helpful editor, overall, pretty smooth process (always easier to say when the paper ends up being published). Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. 1 month to wait for a desk reject is too long. The IJIO has a rapid review process. However, they want to reject whatever you want. Editor clearly read the paper and claimed a referee did too. The editor brought in a tie breaker 3rd, who wrote a very terse reject. Ljunquist is pretty passive. Two reports with mixed view. 2.5 weeks. Just one referee report. Overall, good experience. Rather pleasant experience. Desk reject after 2 months. 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. Quick response. Super standard rejection letter from Olivier Coibion, no advice whatsoever Two months to a desk reject, with zero information from the editor's response. Highly recommended. 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. Do not waste your time with this journal. Result not general enough for ECMA. Long time to first response and had to chase up editor, but comments were helpful and editor was very engaged in the revision process. We asked to see the reports but the editor did not send them. Fast review but very difficult comments. KG was DE in finance. Very efficient process, better than expected. Fasstest acceptation ever after R&R: 1 day! Awful experience. a positive experience, all in all. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. Worst experience with a paper submission ever. The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. Cool editor. one of the reports was literaly 3 sentences. In the second round, the comments are from only one referee, they are easy so revise. Helpful for resubmission somewhere else. Reports were of moderate quality. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. 1 Ref suggested R&R, Galasso decided to reject, Two referees, one useful and helpful, the other clearly not an expert in the field. Received 3 high-quality referee reports within 4 months. Six weeks for a desk reject with no reasons offered, Under editor's evaluation for almost 2 months. 1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. Grad student who manages inbox for ed took bad review at face value. UghhhI will probably withdraw the submission, It is the worst experience I have ever had with a journal. 4 weeks for desk rejection is too much. Submission fee not refunded. Editor provided a letter with comments. American Economic Association oh they're good! 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.
Waukesha County Mugshots,
Aquarius Planet Alignment,
Atrium Health Core Connect Login,
Westvaco Hunting Leases In Tennessee,
Describe The Main Elements Of Douglass's Style,
Articles E