Editor clearly read the paper. Three reports, two reports are with doable suggestions, one is low-quality. The top 20% of women are chasing the top 1% of men. An extremely meager, short, embarassing, useless report. Nice rejection letter. Unprofessional letters, one full of typo and pushed to a no-way-working direction; the other simply was wrong on his/her main comment. Three short reports. After 6 months I got three good reports. Quick desk reject and no comments of substance (form letter) but no cost of submission. Fast turn around. A couple nice comments from Shleifer after two days. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. Department of Geography. 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. We may have been aiming too high. Job Market Candidates | Department of Economics The new editor (Leeat Yariv) did a great job: She indeed read the paper and gave constructive comments. Okay experience overall, 3 weeks for a two sentence desk rejection which suggested submitting to a more specialist journal, Overall good experience. Editor do not reply to any query. Desk reject in one day. Helpful reports, overall good experience. The referee made also several nonsensical remarks about the methodology giving a signal that s/he hasnt thoroughly went through the paper. Avoid at all cost. After waiting for 6 months, I sent a polite email to the editor asking if the paper fell through the cracks. Editor suggested field journal. Jerome Adda was editor. Editor had different opinion. As best I can tell, the purpose is to use a particular modeling framework to illustrate that a trade policies defined in terms of 'import-export' quotas cannot yield a Nash equilibrium of the trade game. I? Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. Desk rejected within 7 days. Editor read the paper too and added some short comments. 1 really excellent, positive report. AER Insights: Generic rejection without any thought or suggestion. Cannot say the paper improved significantly, but it did not get worse either. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. Editor was polite. Economics Job Market Updates / Wiki Awful experience. Sometimes Batten took a long time to make a decision after the reviews were completed, but he was fair. ", Two reports - one thorough and one probably by a grad student, One associate editor recommended rejection and no other comments/suggestions, but one referee provided very useful comments and s/he seems to be positive about the paper. Six months to respond. faculty) positions. Excellent and detailed report, fair decision. Complete waste of 10 months and $200. Good experiences --- fast (1 month for both the first and R&R round), good reports, editor is also very helpful. desk reject by kahn in 48 hours. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. The editor and AEs should be immediately replaced. basic IV! the revision requirements seem achievable. Ref reports quite useful. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. One good report, one completely useless with only superficial, general remarks. Nice editor. 4.5 weeks to desk reject. The referee seems like a first year PhD student who struggled with the notion of left tails. thorough but not brutal enough - the paper was not very a contribution at all at the time and needed a much harsher rejection, seriously, referee reports were very thorough and demonstrated expertise, rejections were fair - just wish I would have gotten these reviewers the first time I submitted the paper. Very good comments from both reviewers and the editor, Frank Sloan. Disgraceful! Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data. Notice that I submitted there on the basis of the widely publicized (EEA Gothenburg) fastness of this journal. Quick turnaround time for the first R&R, but very slow for the last round. 2 referee reports: first one, r&r; second one, reject and resubmit. Submitted in 2012. They clearly help the author to improve their paper instead of rejecting it without trying to extract the best. Pretty fast, the reports are good. Generic letter saying the paper was not fit to general interest journal. One referee, although clearly in favour of publication, asked a good deal of revisions and it took us 4 motnhs to respond so most of the delay may have been our fault. Never would have won that person over. Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. Efficient. I read on EJMR how clubby and unfortunately British this journal is, but never expected it to be true. Bad journal. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied even though I got a fast rejection. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. Insightful and reasonable referee reports. 8 Days to get a desk reject. One referee was in favour of a strong R&R, the other recommended rejection on the basis of mathematical error, the AD seconded the latter. Weak editor. The reviewer was excellent, made the paper much better with his/her comments. accepted immediately after minor revision. I had. One refree report who made very useful comments that helped significantly improve the paper. To get rejected in a good journal, that is ok since it is part of the business but waiting 10 moths for refereee reports of that quality was a really bad deal. 1 report from a senior researcher, who thinks that our paper is a fine exercise but suits field journal better. Are you seriously so focusing on submission fees instead of research itself? two weeks. Fair and constructive comments. Comments were meant for another paper. After waiting for more than 5 months I got 0 Referee reports and a rejection based on very loose comments. Finance Job Rumors (489,486) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,772) Micro Job Rumors (15,235) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,012) China Job Market (103,527) Industry Rumors (40,348) Economics Journal Submission Wiki | Economics Job Market Rumors In a word, this is not a serious journal. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. Answer (1 of 10): I would highly recommend UChicago for you. Third report seemed written by a sage speaking in amharic, most statements were elliptical in nature, and we were left wondering what the referee's point had been. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience! Great judgment. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). PhD Candidates in Economics | NBER Please add AERi to the combo box. 3 weeks. Referee reports were of high quality. Two very poor referee reports. Fair rejection. Very good editor recommending a field journal. Complete waste of time.. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), Reports not very helpful, paper not in journal scope. Editor efficient, but strange experience: Two referees were very favorable, but the third referee rejected by quoting a "flaw" which was in fact correct. Less than 3 weeks for the first responses (major R&R) then accepted in less than a week. Very late and vague one page referee report, rejection based on perceived bad fit with journal. Then again, it only took a couple of weeks to get the rejection. Disappointing outcome, but OK overall experience. said it was a matter of fit. 10 lines not even sure they read the paper. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. Useless referee reports--one was just a single short paragraph. Maybe the paper did not merit publication in JMCB but that referee report was really ridiculous. Editor is a little slow. Two solid referee reports. Fast reviews with reasonable comments. Hard to believe. Desk-rejected after one week without any substantial or specific comment, apart recommending to submit to a specialist journal. $ 200 is high for an immediat desk rejection, editor was helpful in replying to inquiry regarding reason for desk rejection. Not sure I'll ever submit something to RED again. Contribution not general enough suggests Review of Economics and Statistics. Job Market. Referee did not bother to read the paper. Useful comments from knowledgeable reviewers. Apparently JHE considers itself general interest. Annoyed because all of the concerns were addressed and yet she could not be bothered to re-read the paper. One reviewer seemed to think a clean accept, one was 'not really convinced'. Journal of the European Economic Association. The negative one is essentially saying "it's not game theory so I don't care." I'm amazed. It too me the editor 13 months to desk reject. Not a good fit! Good report. The editor, not having confidence in the reports, decided to reject, I believe. The literature review was complete! he clearly read the paper. Job Market Candidates | UCLA Economics Desk Reject in one week for lack of contribution. Received 2 very nice and 1 okay-ish report. Odd journal but overall pleased with the result if not every part of the process. Seems as though they did not like the content and were looking for an excuse to reject. Good process. I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO) long waiting time. Mark Watson was the editor. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. The editor's comments are not informative. Use widely accepted methods. 2 shortish referee reports one fairly positive the other fairly negative, editor decided to reject based on lack of originality. I'll definetly will submit again. I dont care whether you want to increase citations and impact factor fo your journal. AWFUL editorial work. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. Some warm words from the editor. WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). In the opinion of the Editorial Board, this paper does not appear to be a good match (the othee papers are good match) for the International Journal of Industrial Organization and it is unlikely that this paper will ultimately be published in the IJIO. Fair points by referees. Basically useless, a waste of time. 5 months before the editor could take the time to look at the paper. Note: previous desk rejected paper there was published in a much better journal. Quite fast luckily. instantaneous rejection, however, without any comments, 5 Weeks for a desk reject without comments. very efficient process and useful reports from editor and referess. Very different than my past experience. EJM - Econ Job Market Seems safe to ignore the submission guideline: "In tables, please report standard errors in parentheses but do not use *s to report significance levels.". Will not submit again. Well-run journal. One reviewer gave very constructive suggestions. Quickest desk rejection ever experienced. I've been around the block a few times, published in top 5, and most of my articles get cited considerably more than average for the journal. Was a longshot. Horrible experience, late response, useless report. One almost non-existent referee report (basically two lines just saying the paper is not broad enough), one very detailed and overall positive report. some useful comments, but clear that the referee didn't spend a lot of time on the paper, nor take much effort to follow bits of it that weren't conventional. No flyouts yet. Accepted after revision within 1 month. To be honest, I had a hard time understanding exactly what the point of your paper is. Where would you rank Michigan/Ross finance now? 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. 100 USD for such VALUABLE suggestion. After resubmitting, accepted in 2 weeks without going to referees. referees said "nice but not great". The least the editor could have done is to assign another editor. Finance Job Rumors (489,491) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,777) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,013) China Job Market (103,528) Industry Rumors (40,348) I don't know what to add. Took almost 3 months for the first reports. Desk Reject took 4 months. Two days to desk reject, no comments, just boilerplate. Contribution too small. The referee checked my citations and offered helpful comments. Turns out that means he's following the Schwert model: don't read the paper, regurgitate the reviewer's comments in the decision letter. Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. The paper was "with the editor". BTW if one of the referee goes for RR, I would have to wait for a third referee report (lucky me?). The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. Decent referee reports. a positive experience, all in all. 7 days for desk reject. Arizona School Board rejects hiring teachers with Christian values: What is the best country currently to live in? Single ref report had three very minor questions. Both read, understood and gave a few comments. Within a week, Laura Schechter clearly went through the paper and give it a thought with a couple of helpfull comments. Very efficient journal, 3 very helpful reports from a coeditor and 2 referees. Both reviews helpful - one very extensive. Very happy with the editorial process. suggest some field journals. Worst referee report ever. no negative comments, just say that the contribution is not big enough for Econometrica, which is completely understandable. Desk rejected in 2 weeks, editor recommended sending the paper to a field journal. The paper got rejected anyways. But editor rejects. Rejected because topic did not fit the journal. No reason given. AER:Insights. One of the best outlet for phd students. Desk reject with what appeared to be constructive comments but on closer inspection were worthless (points already made in the paper). Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit. A grad student could do better! A really good experience and really fast. Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. It has been about 16 months now. Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. Absolutely disappointed by extremely poor response from the editor (Horioka). Would definitely recommend it even if it's a longshot. Comments are not useful at all. Rejected with only 1 referee reports and after waiting 10 months! I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. Ref. The paper was not a good fit as it did not he approach does not engage the distinctive public choice literature. Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines). No ref reports, 1 sentence from editor. Prof. Sushanta Mallick handles the paper. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). Still got rejected. Market Design; Organizational Economics; Personnel Economics; Race and Stratification in the Economy; Risks of Financial Institutions ; Urban Economics; . Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. Editor followed the referees suggestion, though with his own view on the paper. Reject due to the non-response by the referee. Is "have u told ur mother" am automated script, or truly deranged person? Good Experience. AE recommended other journals. Used reports from AER. Paper rejected based on the editor's phone conversation with the referee. Andrew Foster took a full month for a desk without a comment. Took 9 months for acceptance. Initial demanding R&R. One report was low quality the other was so-so. Waiting for R&R results. One is OK, other one is exteremly negative. One quite short referee report. bargaining? Hyejin Park He does not read the paper, or he has no expertise. J.E. 2 Weeks. 1 very good referee report, 1 OK, 1 pretty bad (revealing that the referee was clearly a non-economist). "Growing by the Masses: Revisiting the Link between Firm Size and Market . Rare experience where every round made paper much better. Tough referee was going through three rounds but eventually accepted. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). On the whole very good experience. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Great experience - referee and editor very helpful. Decision was made in 45 days. What a terrible journal. The other referee was of low quality. Referee's comment was useful but contained too many extensions. Just didn't seem to believe paper, but without any really good reason. The third referee recommended acceptance, but the editor rejected. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. 2 reports + report from AE which is a lot better than referee reports. However, everything was fixed, and overall I am happy. Editor was a little bit lazy as it took him two months after receiving the ref report to answer. 2 reports minimal work, 1 report some work. Think about submitting again. very comprehensive report. Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. Disappointed it wasn't sent out for review, but can't fault them for speed! First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. the referee reports are of good quality, but I think 11 month for a first response is too long, Very quick response. Very efficient process. Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. Editor and editorial staff excellent. Two referee reports, one critical, one encouraging. From the comments it could have been an R&R, at least the referee and editor comments were helpful and will help to improve the paper, Though it is rejcted, I want to express my thankness to the refreee, who provdes a exremly high quality report. AEA-Committee on the Job Market; Cawley, John, A Guide and Advice for Economists on the U. S. Junior Academic Job Market, 2018-19 edition Johannes Pfiefer maintains a catalog of job market tip pages and resources Resources for applying to government positions - L&S Career Site for Govt, Policy, International Affairs, writing a . Very bad experience. Reports were okay but in the end not that helpful. Referee failed to upload report. I declined the offer to resubmit. Two rounds of R&R! My experience with other journals when there is only 1 referee, the editor always provides a report detailing their reasons for accepting or rejecting the paper. The most thoughtful and detailed review I've ever had. Desk reject after 3 days. Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. Very quick response. Editor not helpful at all. it.?I? 6 months and no feedback from the journal whtsoever. Paper sent to an editor with completely different interests. Good comments. Most efficient experience with journals ever! Reason cited: weak paper. Horioka the editor. Rejected. 1 lukewarm, lazy report with many mistakes. The Graduate School of Business at Columbia University is seeking to hire one or more tenure-track faculty members in the area of economics, including those in macroeconomics, open economy macroeconomics, or macroeconomic aspects of international trade, applied microeconomics, organizational economics, industrial organization, behavioral . The discussant in the shitty conf gives better comments. The AEA provides a guide to the job market process created by John Cawley. Job Market and Placements | Faculty of Economics Two careful reports with good feedback. Very useful reports, also doing some editing. Probably I was a bit lucky the 2 referees liked the idea of teh paper sicne ti was a bit sort and basically asked me to do some mreo stuff. Good experience. Desk rejected in less than a week. Turn down without a single line of comment in both rounds. And once that was done, he wanted us to rewrite the article. The rejection was fine but took too long for a desk reject. Very good experience. Good turnaround time. All three schools are exceptional but UChicago is particularly strong in Econ as well as other core subjects such as polisci and philosophy. Pretty good experience. Waited 2 months for the paper to be assigned to an editor. An Associate Editor clearly read the paper. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. Editor makes no attempt to reconcile conflicting reports or, One good referee report. one positive, one negative report. Excellent editor, balanced referees and good timing. One good quality referee with good comments and suggestions. I knew I shot too high. Avoid if possible. EconJobRumors.com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is a website for academic economists. Editor desk rejected based on the identification strategy in the abstract, and clearly did not read the paper. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. Cool editor. Editor should know better. It was clear the editor asked a former student to be the referee, I guess the editor does not feel positively about the paper. High quality reports and useful comments from the editor. Quick acceptance after revision. Highly recommended. Focus of decision appeared to be on the institutional context of the paper rather than considering the economics. No comment from the editor,ridiculous journal. This journal is a bit hell to make it attractive to authors in order to get their money easily. Very long wait. One reviewer is helpful, another needs to retake econometrics course. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. The referee is clearly not up to the task. Slightly more informative than a desk rejection. very well-run journal, Very thoughtful referee reports with clear suggestions for improvement, as well as recommendations from the co-editor for better suited journals, editor read the paper and rejected with some useful comments. Proved to be quite true. Ultimately fair. The other was low quality and made factually incorrect statements that seemed to influence the associate editor's assessment of the manuscript. The review process yielded good referee reports in round 1. The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. Bad experience. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. 1 months for desk reject. OK report. Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that! Editor gives no justification whatsoever. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. Good experience, great turnaround. Waited over 9 month for a half-page low quality report. Nice words from Editor. Editor admitted haven't read the paper. A disappointment. Very smooth process. One week desk rejection with form letter. After resubmission, I was informed that the paper would be sent to another editor (Prof. Mallick). The editor was not helpful at all. Editor (Reis) worked hard on paper to make it better. way too long for a "standard" rejection. In print a couple of weeks later. Avoid at all costs.. one referee suggested revision, one rejection, editor followed the rejection; good reports, suggestions improved the paper, Two revisions but rejected by editor, fast and fair comments, One accept with min comments, one said ok but many points/revisions, one reject, editor said too large a revision without guarantee for accept, 1 report recommended to publish, 1 pointed out minor points. Excellent editorial work, with very clear road-map of how to address referee concerns. I suspect a tight club. Received two detailed reports, which were reasonably useful. Took 5 months in total, 2 reports, a paragraph each. American Economic Association