Is William G Baker Still Alive, Is Marisa Moseley Married, Raleigh, Nc Natural Disasters, Lingering Nasal Congestion After Covid, St Michael Prayer Latin Tattoo, Articles E

What a terrible journal. Accepted as it is. Editor didn't even read the paper and rejected it. Very fast decisions. The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. two referees with constructive comments, one referee rather negative and no substantial comment. The editor did give us advice to split the paper in two, although he didn't really provide a justification for rejection. reviewer knew an aspect of the literature and appeared to promote his own unpublished paper under review at the same journal. Total waste of time. from AE, but editor rejected without explanation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Great experience - referee and editor very helpful. Seems like a sound reason. The status has been "Pending Editor Triage" for 10 months. But I understand it may not have been a good fit. Good experience, Referees on the fence, rejection because editor does not like topic. Recommended to aim for field journals. Neither felt that the paper was a good fit for an urban journal. City of PhoenixPhoenix - USA, Senior Analyst - Economics Department Complained. The editor read the paper in great details and added a lot of comments to the referees'. Board Threads Posts Last Post; Economics Job Market Threads. Referees didnt understand shape of indifference curves, confused standard errors for standard deviations, ignored figures in main text while misinterpreting figures from the appendix. Editor chose to follow the suggestion of the AE. I have no problem receiving a desk-reject, but the stated reasons show no understanding of our research. Editor actually read the paper. After revision was done the AE decided to reject without sending to referees! Waste of money. The paper is now much stronger. Will submit again (other work, of course) on the basis of professionalism and treatment. I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. Desk rejected in 14 days, just long enough to get hopes up, with boilerplate "not general interest.". One very grumpy referee report. Pathetic referee reports. The editor, one AE and some referees (in the first stage there was only one, completely irrelevant) have insulted my intelligence. "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. Go report in 2 days. Editor argued I had observational data and no identification, hence instant rejection. The second one is more critical and seems to be angry by the fact that I'm not citing his work. Fantastic experience (accepted first round), Directly accepted within one month. Very late and vague one page referee report, rejection based on perceived bad fit with journal. Unacceptable waiting time. We resubmitted to AEPP and the paper received minor revisions after the second R&R. Paper rejected based on the editor's phone conversation with the referee. 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. 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. Invites for 2nd round zoom interviews sent today. Letter gives no mention of reasons for rejection and even unclear on paper's final status. Apparently JHE considers itself general interest. AVOID it. Very clear that two of the three referees hadn't read the paper. Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations, two reports, comments not always very clear on what was wanted but still helpful. Very polite desk rejection. Editor did not even read the paper correctly. Fast desk reject, no substantial comments. It's been 10 months and still waiting for a first response of a short paper. Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper, no longer a serious all purpose journal imho; "desk reject" after 6 mos on the basis of style in the abstract, Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded, One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end, Terrible experience. The AE's letter was useful, although no suggestion what to try next. Avoid this journal by any means. Suggested changes and several other outlets. Very good reports, very effective handling of the editor. Home. Job Market. R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. Comments didn't make sense. Editor told us to what extent the comment should be addressed. Co-editor felt nothing "wrong" with paper but does not made enough of a contribution to warrant publication. It took 2.5 months from initial submission to receiving three OK reviews. Efficient and fair. My first ever publication. There was no mistake. Two very useful ref reports in the first round. He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. Average time between rounds of R&R (months), EJMR | Job Market | Candidates | Conferences | Journals | Night Mode | Privacy | Contact. If Minnesotas one of the least woke departments, why does EJMR hate it so much? Xavier Vives rejected the paper after 4 rounds and 2 years based on the recommendation of an incompetent referee who couldn't understand the paper and kept making bogus claims about errors in the analysis or interpretation in every round. Submitted August 14, 2015. Excellent editorial work, with very clear road-map of how to address referee concerns. Very inefficient handling process. Saying that the topic is not general enough. 2/3 ref reports were detailed and useful. Desk reject in 1 week. Desk rejection based on lack of fit, altough there were at least 4 papers published on the same topic in previous years. However, I take as it was me not being able to pass the make the point I wanted. Suggested top field (JPubE in our case). It seems like one of the reviewers do not even read my paper.The suggestions are nonsense. Report very critical but useful nonetheless. Annoying! Nedless to say I got no referee report even after asking. Theory in one field sent to AE in another field doing empirics. Revision accepted after one day. Less than 24 hours.Rogert J. Barro was the editor. Two excellent referee reports. Glad that they didn't waste my time. My paper was a comment, so I consider this pretty slow. The paper got rejected anyways. Job Market. Disappointing turnaround for this journal. Suggested a top field journal! One decent, the other sloppy. Second report little use. Desk rejected in two weeks. WE got 3 tough and long referee reports. Not recommended. Desk rejected in less than a week. Portuguese Economic Journal* Great process. The equation to be estimated is not well explained and basic econometric issues (e.g., the problems related to the inclusion of lagged dependent variables) are not discussed. While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. One report was an absolute travesty and surely had to be disregarded. Comments were useful and recommended a tier of journal to try next. Two reports with mixed view. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. Took almost 3 months for the first reports. I ended up presenting the paper at two conferences between the submission and the decision. So there is zero feedback. Mostly good comments, though not given much detail about main criticism. Very quick handeling, decent reports. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. Then the referee gave their answer in 2 weeks. Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. Very long wait. Reports were semi thorough and okay, appreciated the fairly quick response, The referees raised concerns that we were not able to see before, and they were fair. Crappy reports. Strongly recommend submitting there. In general, it is difficult to follow the derivations due to a lack of intuitive explanations. The ME provided helpful comments on top of the two reviewers'. Completely useless reports from referees/editor not know the methodology involved. Contribution too small. Expected at least some referee reports but got a bad match editor-wise. Great turnaround I guess? Good comments, made the paper better. Okay referee reports. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Do not offer any innovative technique. One of the referee reports was of alarmingly low quality. 1 Month and 10 days for first decision is too long. Six page referee report after 8 months, answered everything the ref wanted, on second round he said I didn't answer his comments at all (despite a further 10 page reply) and rejected. Very efficient. Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. I'll definetly will submit again. 2022 Job Market Candidates . The Editor was quite polite. But overall very very slow process. Paper rejected by editor. Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. I then spent 2+ months revising, only to be rejected (after another two months), no new reports, but detailed comments from the editor. Excellent Experience. May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. Then why are we doing all this work?! I am an assistant professor at Universit de Montral. superficial comment. Desk reject within a few days. Longish time to first response but good reports and a ref who just loved digging into my equations. Good experience. Poor reports. Bad journal. Still not a fan of this journal. Editor was also very helpful. Quality Ref reports. The co-editor gave very specific, though difficult requests for the revision. Very well-run journal. He suggested a general interest journal. Two referee reviews. a positive experience, all in all. referees appear to understand the area. Very quick and extremely professional. AE decided to reject! "Although interesting and competently executed, your study does not contain a sufficient theoretical or empirical innovation that would meet the very high standards of the EER." He recommended me to send it to a more specialized field journal. Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever. It is a very demanding R&R and we revise the paper a lot according to the suggestions, but it is worthwhile. Suggested to submit to RSUE. Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow. The contributions are very thoroughly detailed in the introduction, ie, the referee had to read around 3 pages and took him/her 6 months to do so. Reflects really poorly on the journal to keep this guy. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. Massive waste of time and money. 1 month to wait for a desk reject is too long. Desk reject in two weeks after submitting a paper. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; . Neither of the two reviewers seemed t have read the paper. One very good report, the other average-to-good. Very unprofessional. I will try in the future. Some conflicting recomms that editor didn't address. Clearly scanned the paper, deemed not general enough, and recommended other outlets. KS super smart and constructive feedback. 3 Top 5 referees and editor said the paper was a good fit for ReStat, meh Amitabh Chandra rejected in one month with no infomation. Suggested top field journal. For a short paper, it took quite a longtime for deskreject without a single sentence relating to the paper. The other did not understand the basic identification strategy in the paper. Really smooth process. The contribution of the paper as it stands to be insu cient for publication in The Econometrics Journal. Will submit again.. Desk reject after 2 weeks due to bad fit. Editor did seem to have read the paper, possibly in more detail than the referee who comments several thing that was included in paper. Editor misunderstood the findings, complained didn't understand the Y variable (maybe ease up on the word limit then). 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. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Awfully slow. Probably just a grad student who could only understand calculations. Ridicolous report: 3 lines where the referee asked to address "geopolitical" issues. My impression is that the editor didn't even bother looking at the paper. Mentioned that they do not consider theoretical papers. Gorodnichenko was nice. Friendly referee with clear remarks. Desk rejection (standard email). I suspect a tight club. Quickest desk rejection ever experienced. desk rejected in 3 days. I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,806) Micro Job Rumors (15,245) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,027) China Job Market (103,534) AFter 3 months of being "under review", I get this email: I regret to say that we are not able to offer publication to your paper. Not very fast but good in overall. Got accepted after a week. instantaneous rejection, however, without any comments, 5 Weeks for a desk reject without comments. 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). We made almost all of the changes required by the referees and the editor accepted it. Very Fast. 5 weeks to first response. Was not notified by the decision through email, found the decision in manuscript central during a random check. Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. The Editor mentioned that the paper is outside the scope of the Journal. It took 1 year from submission to acceptance, but the journal was quick, I took to long to do the revisions. Desk reject in 1 week. Editor Prof. David Peel is a very nice guy. Fast Resposne in 10 week. I regret to inform you that we do not consider this work to be of sufficient interest to our readership to warrant publication. The other referee recommended revision. Young Economist Rankings | IDEAS/RePEc - Research Papers In Economics Both reviews helpful - one very extensive. The reports were largely useless. Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions. Quick turnaround upon revision. Posted: (4 days ago) WebNov 2011 - Present10 years 4 months. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. Seems to be a fair process, 13 months for editor to desk reject because the paper has no empirical section, One good report, very constructive, the other one rejecting the paper. The reports were very useful and the referees seemed to have given the paper a very careful reading. Initial response for R&R was quite fast, but the second response after the resubmission took quite a long time, and it seems that the paper was just sitting at the editor's desk for more than a month before they were assigned back to the referees. "We are hesitant to publish purely empirical papers" comment could have been boilerplate but seemed uninformative, Exceptionally quick turnaround times. One reviewer was ok after the first R&R. Very happy LRM made it past desk. After 10 months waiting, I had a revise and resubmit decision. Editor referred to a report by a reviewer received by phone. 2 quick rounds of R&R. Fair and constructive comments. The referee cannot fully understand the model. no negative comments, just say that the contribution is not big enough for Econometrica, which is completely understandable. No comments from Katz except go to field journal. Helpful reports and suggestions by the editor. Fair decision, referee reports pointed out major flaw but hardly in a way that could be called constructive. Two reports were reasonable and one report was very low quality. Miserable. reviews were helpful, required a month's solid work to revise. Would submit again. In general, you could bulid up a career writting notes on methodological errors publisehd in this journal. Good reasons for rejection; comments improved paper for next submission. Not a good fit! my ?defense,? Quick response. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. Referee reports were on the shrt side, but competent and polite, unfrtunately I doubt that the comments received will help improving the paper. Good experience. The worst experience so far. 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. The editor did put more weight on the negative one. The reviewer and the editor did not understand the paper. First reviewer excellent. Economist 64dd. Although the paper fits to one of their categories. Editor provided a letter with comments. Three high quality referee reports. Could've desk-rejected instead of two useless referee reports. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. quick decision by the editor. The model is not presented in a clear and intelligible way. He, however, had the balls to apologize for the delay. 2 was more critical. Great experience. 2 shortish referee reports one fairly positive the other fairly negative, editor decided to reject based on lack of originality. Engineering at HPE Wish the outcome was different, but the turnaround time couldn't have been better. Reasonable comments from referees. Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. One referee report after 11 months. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates | Economics Department Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. Contact: hyejin -dot- park -at . Overall, very happy with the process. desk rejected after thee months. 3 weeks for a desk rejectand they keep the $100. Initial review was slow but there was an editor change that may have contributed to this. Research Assistant (Pre-Doc) Law and Economics. Paper eventually got accepted at higher ranked journal (!). One ok report, one poor. Quick handling, competent (positive) reports. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. desk rejected in a week. comments were not very insoghtful, but decision & process overall fair. They should just ask me $60. The referee report was very poor. Graduate Advisors. Desk rejected with 1 sentence after 2 months. . 8 days to desk rejection. Editorial office very helpful. Empirical results didn't match their political priors so recommended rejection. Desk Rejected after 2 days. Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. it was in 2016. They have officially adopted the policy of not giving reasons for desk rejections given the 75% desk rejection rate. Actually Journal of Economic Policy Reform. Insightful comments by both referees and editor. Editor (Partridge) was very helpful and was de facto a 4th referee. not a fair process. Fast and efficient. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). Referee reports were very good, constructive and tough. Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. 2 positive. On this basis the paper is unsuitable for JAPE and the decision is to reject the paper. desk reject after three months editor claimed they did not publish papers on this topic but they bogh b, actually submitted in 2017; desk rejection after 1 week; short and friendly answer of editor; however inconclusive, editoral. Reports were not very helpful. (are we a bit paranoiac?). 1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals. good reports. 2022-2023 Ph.D. Job Market Candidates - Department Of Economics In general, efficient journal, 2 months, 2 good reports & 1 trash report, fair outcome and ok process. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh, London, Manchester - UK, Predoctoral Fellow One useless report, but the other one is decent. Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. Long time to edit and format after acceptance. Some useful comments from his friend. Very fast process. Fair process. Very pleasant process. Decent referee reports. the referee report adds nothing, and the editor rejects based on the meaningless report. Constructive and helpful comments from the co-editor. We agreed with most of the comments. One very helpful referee report, 2 not so helpful. At the time the editor had still the paper sitting on his desk. Editor said there are two reports but I only received one. The editor provided one. Referee report was ready within a month after submission. First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. Editor did not intervene and kept hiding throughout. had no economic relevance and was not worth being sent out to a referee. That indicates he/she did not finish reading the paper. Second referee made some useful suggestions. The dynamic is well known and its implications are rather straightforward in this context. The editor agrees with the latter statement but adds "unless it's great. Polite / nice email from Editor. Submission refund. San Jose, CA. 1 reject and 1 R&R. Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. R&R was helpful. The second was more critical. Sent it to another top 5 instead where it got accepted after one round of revisions - never give up guys! Good experience. I suspect whether Penny Goldberg is competent. The editor's comments were no less helpful and extensive as referees' reports. Reviewers made many incorrect comments and almost no useful comments, editor straight up said didn't read the paper, but reviewers are negative so reject. The referees and the editor took ridic, Editor: Heckman; high quality reports, two of the reports were helpful and constructive. plus for a quick turnaround. No indication that the editor had even read the paper. After that, the R&R only took 10 days and we also tackled a minor comment from the editor. Bad experience with both the referee reports and the editor, Single RR, Editor said couldn't find a second reviewer. The paper was accepted after one round of submission. Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. Great comments from the referees and editor. R&R, took forever, reports mentioned but not provided, not responsive to emails. One of the best outlet for phd students. After pressing four times, they told me it was out for review. Joerg Baten seems to be literally an idiot making me wonder how he got picked. Bad experience overall, although the reports came quickly. Desk rejected within 7 days. One referee does not follow simple math, immediately assumes the model is wrong and the editor takes his side. Useful and encouraging comments from referees, who appeared very interested in improving the paper and offering helpful suggestions to do so. I resubmitted in January, and the paper was accepted with minor revisions in March. 2 students with mostly useless comments. Referees asked for reasonable stuff. Editor overturned referee's decisions with poor justification. This decision is not in any sense a negative comment on the quality of the paper. recommended Journal of Development Economics. Bradshaw AdvisoryLondon/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds - UK. WD has become a true shitshow. The rejection came with a useless referee report. Seems largely like the referee just didn't like it and the editor wanted there to be more significant results (publication bias at its best). Finally withdraw. One told me I should have use the methodology introduced by XPTO et al, which was the one I used and cited Only worthy comment was the editors who stated (and rightly so) that though our model statistically improved forecasts. Absolutely pathetic. Two referee reports: 1 seemed to miss basics of the paper and didn't provide useful insight/comments and the other was exhaustive, insightful, and useful moving forward. I haven't received the first response yet. referee and AE comments, OK at best. If you need a fast turnaround, this is not the journal for you! Got two most useless reports ever. Inquired about my submission after 7 months, got answer that revision time "totally depends on the reviewers". Rejected after 1st R&R. Positive feedback from the editor. Dest rejected in three days. quick process but the editor provided no information and was impolite. Suggested some other journals. Journal of Economics and Finance Education. This, of course, is useless. Not surprised to hear that the impact of the journal is going down. One report was not very helpful.