Editor overturned referee's decisions with poor justification. 50% of Americans believe US should support Ukraine 'as long as it takes Two short referee reports straight to the point. Quality of editing going down. A number of emails without reply since then. Bad experience. In short, he left us only one option: not to resubmit. Got a rejection within a couple of days without any constructive comment. Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. It took 2.5 months from initial submission to receiving three OK reviews. Yep, it is. avoid. Just one referee report. Recently Announced. A Doctorate level degree in Economics or related fields, or expect to receive it in 2023 with strong background in empirical analysis and policy-focused research. Detailed reports, 2 negative, 1 positive; nice letter from co-editor. Serrano handled the manuscript. The results just didn't fit their priors. Charging for this should be a crime. Overall, good experience. Reports submitted within one month. Edmans said he wanted RoF to be top 3. Although my article had Nikkei 225 index in it they rejected it anyway! Horioka the editor. I didn't expect an accept here, but I def did not expect to be rejected on the grounds of such poor review reports. Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. One referee report---which is actually better than any report ever received with this paper (including those from RFS, JFQA, and MS). Katz had very clear advice regarding revision (also what parts of the referee reports to ignore). Very useful suggestions by the editor who read the paper carefully. 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. Might submit again, a little disappointed that they didn't try to get it reviewed. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. Two referees were lukewarm but couldn't really point out too much that was wrong. Very smooth process. WD has become a true shitshow. It took me a lot of time to deal with unqualified comments. Katz rejected in less than 24 hours with some comments. 6 weeks to get 3 referee reports. Not enough contribution. Waiting was attrociious and final rejection not properly justified since reviewers went AWOL. Katz voted to reject. One report was very constructive and helped improve the qualitiy of the paper. Split decision. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Actually Journal of Economic Policy Reform. Told not a fit. others ref reports okay. Extremely long wait at this journal for comments. Editor (frank) did not read the paper and wrote 2 lines arguing that there were many papers addressing similar question (which was not entirely true). Editor is losing it. Heckman handled paper. Professional and useful oversall. Long wait for such an outcome, 3 reports and Editor provides some good suggestions within 10 weeks. Editor was really nice. Overall good experience. Economics Journal Submission Wiki | Economics Job Market Rumors -> Toilet. Jerome Adda was editor. Very short to the point referee report. Good experience. Once that work was published, he finally accepted the paper. Katz very thoughtful and helpful editor letter. Ref rejected in 3 weeks. It seems like one of the reviewers do not even read my paper.The suggestions are nonsense. 1 was more positive and ref. One very good and helpful report. Recommended a more specialized journal to try next. This page collects information about the academic mathematics job market: positions, short lists, offers, acceptances, etc. Health economics, Applied . Basically if you don't make everyone happy on the first round you stand no chance at this journal. Placement Director - Alessandro Pavan Email: alepavan@northwestern.edu. Turns out that means he's following the Schwert model: don't read the paper, regurgitate the reviewer's comments in the decision letter. 1 day desk rejection by editor. Good comments, helped improve the paper. Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. The report is rubbish and incorrect. Paper desk rejected in 3 days. Four line referee report written in a hurry before deadline and before ref obviously had to jet off on holiday. Finished revision in 1 month and once resubmitted took them 2 weeks to accept. Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. Bad experience. Very efficient. Bigger joke than the article I sent them. The status has been "Pending Editor Triage" for 10 months. Enough said. Very negative experience. However, he suggested that I submit my paper to a theory journal. Desk Reject, No Comment, Horrible Experience- THEY DO NOT REFUND the submission fee. Accepted after two rounds. Review process was very efficient. 4 months for a desk rejection based on what it appears to be a very superficial reading of the abstract. No comments from the editor though. Desk reject after 2 months! Weak editor. Job Market Candidates. One good report, the other one poor. 1 good report and 2 of low quality probably written by grad students. Desk-rejected after ten days. Editor is bonkers, he said article was outside scope of journal.when it was clearly regiona/urban economics article. Good first round reports, took a while to respond to all the comments. Revise and Resubmit. After more data were collected, the editor said "a referee suggested empirical work was not serious enough." 10 days for desk reject. It seems from this website that this in not uncommon for this journal. Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations, two reports, comments not always very clear on what was wanted but still helpful. 1 month desk reject. Referee reports complete crap. Helpful and doable things. High quality editing. Poorly managed journal. Very good experience. Editor agreed with them. Avoid if possible. Editor gives no justification whatsoever. Referee only comments on the first half of the paper. But we are still hopeful. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. 5 days. Elsevier is terrible, screwed up the transfer so took over a month to end up on editor's desk. The main tasks of the potential candidates would be to carry . 1 month to wait for a desk reject is too long. Journal of Economics and Finance Education. One quite short referee report. No way to check on status. Garbage journal, not a real journal, avoid. 4 months for first report, 5 months for second, only to be rejected by referee. Poor experience, will not submit again. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). Overall, good experience with IREF. Reasonably good experience; referee not overly experienced with topic. One positive review, one negative, editor took the side of the negative. However, he referred to incorrect and minor points made by the referees. Four months for a desk reject! editor said the paper had too much economics, The editor was very helpful to summarize what he thought should be done from 4 referee reports. This journal has published MANY papers using these methods and policy makers regularly fund these methods. One extremely useful and one useless report. desk reject in 2.5 hrs? "Growing by the Masses: Revisiting the Link between Firm Size and Market . Lousy comments from the Editor in chief. helpful comments; quick process; good experience. Much quicker response than suggestsed. Referee rejected but with very exhaustive and interesting comments, only one report, but it was fair and can help me to improve the paper, Reports are thoughtful and useful for revisions, it took them 11 months to reject with one referee report of about half a page. The first referee points out at the weaknesses of the paper and proposes reasonable solutions. 3 reports, very quick. cooperative? Culter said that there was backlog at JHE. It is a disgrace to the profession reflects poorly on the journal. Also suggested 3 very good field Journal. Generic letter saying the paper was not fit to general interest journal. Found out it was rejected only by contacting them. report and a couple of pretty good ones. Good helpful report asking for few corrections. Fairly quick acceptance. In the meantime they lied to me saying that it was out for review and that they were awaiting referee scores. Home | Economics Job Market Rumors Very good experience. It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. This is a wiki for tracking searches in various categories for academic (i.e. Two competent reviewers, one slightly hostile, one friendly. Never again! They just pocketed the submission fee. Editor was respectful and not full of himself. Only have issues with one of the reviewers. The editor did not even get that the comments were wrong. He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. One useful referee report and one that was not. No input from editor either. Editor from outside of the field (empirical corporate fin) did not think that my paper (ap theory) is interesting. She said only 1 (very short but with no objections) of 3 of the referees responded and was not able to find new referees. Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. We may have been aiming too high. Standard comments, paper's topic just not good enough. Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject. Decision by editor (Mark Taylor): minor revision and resubmit. Standard experience with the JHR. Two reports (half-page each) citing minor issues. Good experience! One referee report only. Each report was less than 600 words long with 3-4 main comments but not in much dept (not even full references included). Good experience. (are we a bit paranoiac?). And mentioned class struggle. Quick desk reject (3 days). Followed up on them, sent it to another journal, and got accepted very quickly. Quick responds. Faculty of Economics Austin . Poor. Very fast. Clearly he had read the paper. Got the rejection after 185 days, referees like to wait until the last couple of days to read papers! 2.5 months review. Avoid this journal. Nonder they are going down in ranking in Dev Econ steadily. Comments dubious at best. Very helpful referee reports. Useful comments from editor; one really great ref. Job market wiki Economics Job Market Rumors Absolutely pathetic. Paper rejected by editor. Thorough review. They pointed out several issues of my paper, but they are either wrong or something that can be easily fixed. Some reviewers disappeared after the first review, the editors could't even find an alternative, and the comments were not assessed critically by the editors due to an editorial change. Desk reject within 1 day. Took a year for the paper to get accepted. Economics Job Market Updates / Wiki Referee makes a factually inaccurate claim about previous research, and misinterprets interaction terms. Waste of money. fast turnaround. Total turn around time was about 40 days. Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. I revised as a new submission based on comments from a previous reviewer at the journal, referee report was short, but demonstrated expertise, could have addressed all of the comments but ultimately rejected under KS. The other was low quality and made factually incorrect statements that seemed to influence the associate editor's assessment of the manuscript. Rejected after revision, very good comments in initial round. Quite fast luckily. Useful ref reports and helpful comments from co-editor. Rejected within 4 days with a decent explanation. Worst. Fast turn around. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!! Very efficient process. No BS, great experience! The other without serious suggestions. No response for seven and a half months. One reviewer is helpful, another needs to retake econometrics course. https://wpcarey.asu.edu/economics-degrees/research-seminars-workshops, Hoy (World Bank), Cox (Yale), Toppeta (UCL), Prettnar (UCSB), Kang (Stony Brook), Abdulhadi (OSU), Sun (Penn State), Seyler (Laval), Neal (UNSW), Lin (UCLA), Huang (NYU), Zhang (Princeton), Beltekian (Nottingham), Jin (BU & CMU), Kumagai (Brown), Zhou (Chicago Postdoc), Chen (LISER & Tilburg), https://rse.anu.edu.au/seminars-events/all-seminars, Senior Economist or FSS Senior Analyst (2022-2023 PhD Job Market), Behavioral Economics, Experimental Economics, Assistant Professor, Business and Public Policy, Kapon (Princeton postdoc), Moscona (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Nord (EUI), Vergara (Berkeley), Wang (EUI), Ashtari (UCL), Sung (Columbia), Conwell (Yale), Carry (ENSAE), Song (USC), Thereze (Princeton), Banchio (Stanford GSB), Vitali (UCL), Wong (Columbia), Kang (Stanford GSB), Ba (UPenn), Durandard (Northwestern), Department of Social and Political Sciences, Zenobia T. Chan (Princeton), Xiaoyue Shan (Zurich), Germain Gauthier (CREST), Massimo Pulejo (NYU), Joan Martnez (Berkeley), Enrico Miglino (UCL), Assistant Professor of the Practice in Economics, Borghesan (Penn) Wagner (Harvard) Acquatella (Harvard) Vitali (UCL) Zahra Diop (Oxford) Bernhardt (Harvard), Boston University, Pardee School of Global Studies, Assistant Professor of International Economic Policy, Yeji Sung (Columbia), Joao Guerreiro(Northwestern), Seck (Harvard), Borusyak (UCL), Rexer (Wharton), College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University, Castro de Britto (Bocconi), Alfonsi (Berkeley), Miano (Harvard), Hazard (PSE), Uccioli (MIT), Brandimarti (Geneva), Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Mattia (Chicago), Applied Microeconomics, Business Economics, Hampole (Kellogg), Kwon (HBS), Morazzoni (UPF), Puri (MIT), Vasudevan (Yale), Wang (Stanford GSB), Pernoud (Stanford), Vats (Booth), Otero (UC Berkeley, hes accepted the Columbia GSB offer), Commonwealth University of Pennsylvania - Bloomsburg, Cong @Cornell is a free rider of people's research, Szerman(Princeton), Kohlhepp(UCLA), Contractor(Yale), Pauline Carry (CREST), Nimier-David (CREST), Lukas Nord (EUI), Philipp Wangner (TSE), Anna Vitali (UCL), Lucas Conwell (Yale University), Florencia Airaudo (Carlos III), Fernando Cirelli (NYU), Nils Lehr (Boston Univesrity), Sara Casella (University of Pennsylvania), Yehi Sung (Columbia University), Shihan Shen (UCLA), Federico Puglisi (Northwestern University), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Juan Manuel Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton University), Martin Souchier (Stanford), Benny Kleinman (Princeton Univerisity), Miano (Harvard), Ramazzotti (LSE), Miglino (UCL), Petracchi (Brown), Augias (Sciences Po), Uccioli (MIT), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Vattuone (Warwick), Yang (ANU), Mantovani (UPF), Ashtari Tafti (UCL), Colombo (Mannheim), Vocke (Innsbruck) (see here: shorturl.at/azHN1), Thereze (Princeton) Miller (Wharton) Matcham (LSE) van der Beck (EPFL) Casella (UPenn) Wang (Stanford GSB) Taburet (LSE) Pernoud (Stanford) Mittal (Columbia) Hampole (Kellogg). After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. Editor was polite. But very quick process after contacting editorial office. Took almost 3 months for the first reports. A lot of small nit-picky criticism and some factually wrong statements about paper. For the steep fee would have been appropriate if editor had written a few sentences about why they rejected. Desk reject after few days with some useful suggestions. The Referee Report was very helpful and quite positive. BTW, "Under review" all the time during the reviewing process, similar to AEA journals (but different from some other journals using manuscript central). They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. Readers familiar with the operation of the market can proceeddirectlytothe"data"subsectionbelow. A bit slow, but good comments by the referee. Desk rejected thoughtelessly with curious comment paper read more like a book, 8 month desk reject with no reports--JPE is dead to me, desk rejected in a bit over a week, not clear who handled the paper.
Ronnie Coleman Company Net Worth,
Washington Ebt Customer Service Number,
Articles E
