econ job market rumors wiki econ job market rumors wiki

No referee reports. The report that was on fence did not understand some of the points made in the paper, as his biggest concern was addressed in the introduction itself. 3 months for a summary reject by the editor. The paper was not sent to the referee but instead the editor said it was reviewed by the editorial board. One useless report, but the other one is decent. Disappointing referee: a few useful comments, but mostly low-grade and somewhat hostile. One good quality referee with good comments and suggestions. Neither felt that the paper was a good fit for an urban journal. Unfortunately the editor decides to reject the paper on the last round because he has concern about the paper. Rejected due to data limitation. good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. Poor, self serving. Accepted once I satisfied the referees. Accepted after 3 R&R. Nice reports. One is a R&R type, and the other referee said that he was not interested in the topic, nothing about the details of the paper. Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. The secondary market "Scramble". Third referee was slow and did not provide public report (he caused the delay). The journal is likely to go up again. It took 7 months until the JORS provided two referee reports of poor quality (one refere suggested to replace GMM with FE regression because it is impossible to solve endogeneity completely). 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. Editor letter saying that what we do is not so new. (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint). Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. Paper: "Regulating the Sharing Economy: A Study of Unlawful Providers". The editor rejected it though. Editor uninterested. Really unprofessional. Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Putea MatuaWellington - New Zealand, Assistant Director, Economics Fast and fair enough. Accepted w/o further revision 18 days after resubmit. plus for a quick turnaround. The paper was accepted few days after the revised version has been submitted. Failed to notify me of rejection. But at least fast. Helpful and doable things. Good reports. The other one, who wanted extra revises, was a bit of stupid. Good referee reports about key aspects of the research question framing and relevance. Awesome experience. Made comments about Maximum Likelihood etc when I was using Method of Simuated Moments. Nothing happened. High submission fees. He suggested a more suitable outlet. rejection. 1 Referee provided useful comments that improved the paper. They should just ask me $60. After 10+ years in a research institution, counless submission, countless rejections, and some papers published in highly ranked journal, this was definitely my worst experience ever. Was not worth waiting that long (this is an understatement). While harping on the issue, provided no insights as to how one can go about it. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO) is ?so ?poor? Was actually scared based off of runors I heard on this site. Seemed like a fair 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. He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. The editor, Gideon Saar, was lazy and did not read the paper. 2nd round 2 months. Very fast, two high quality referee reports. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. One good referee, one ok, one terrible. However, everything was fixed, and overall I am happy. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. 3 weeks for a desk reject. 1 very useful report and associate editor 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). Fast editors. Somehow it took a whole year for the referees to write short and horribly useless reports which show they did not even bother to read the introduction. One high quality report. Contribution too small. Wouldn't submit here again. one ?could ?understand? Worst experience ever nearly one year just to hear "not much new, therefore reject" 100 bucks for nothing. of? 3 months (!) The reviewer's reports came up 2 months after submission. The quality of the report was disappointing. Avoid this journal by any means. Three rounds. Desk reject with what appeared to be constructive comments but on closer inspection were worthless (points already made in the paper). Economics Job Market. All reports are positive. AE recommended other journals. Very slow. 2 referee reports: 1 very detailed recommending revisions; other useless. Clearly he had read the paper. Submitted 4 February, rejected 29 December with 1 ok referee report that had been submitted in May. 5 months before the editor could take the time to look at the paper. Standard comments, paper's topic just not good enough. Two very useful referee reports. fast turnaround. Three poor reports. Probably just a grad student who could only understand calculations. The referee seemed to be familiar with the broad topic of the special issue, but not with the specific subject the paper dealt with (e.g. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. The process was very fast. Fast and clean. Entire process takes 1 month. It just decided not to believe the empirical analysis. Very unprofessional. 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. 2 detailed comments from referees. Editor accepted the article within one week. Both refs postive but think the topic is not a good fit for the journal. Very happy with experience so far. No feedback at all. Would try again in the future. One referee was thoughtful and recommended acceptance; Second referee asked for more results; AE agreed with the 1st referee. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. Poor / no justification for decision. Some conflicting recomms that editor didn't address. Referee report was positive and recommended R&R. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. Desk rejected in 2 days with a very short report "better fit for a finance journal". 1 reject and 1 R&R. low quality and very short referee report Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text. Quick-ish, 10 weeks. Insane process and utterly inexperienced referee. One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. Two useful reports. Extremely helpful comments that significantly improved the paper in the end. Editor rejected because paper topic (public finance) is not what tey are currently looking for. AVOID it. The first note of the referee claimed that I didn't do something I clearly did. They will help to improve the paper. Very bad experience. Not a good referee match given papers subject matter and therefore not very useful comments. Getting a reference to AEJ Applied was worth it. Bad experience on the whole. Appreciate fast review and efficient process. Some useful comments, most misreads and poor understanding of model. Editor slept on the paper's submission history and the reviewer's dishonesty. Considered waste of time here. Still took 3 months. Both referees suggested papers to be cited in the literature review, which seem like their own papers. At least the process was fast. However, he suggested that I submit my paper to a theory journal. Polite letter from Bekaert. One report was very useful. Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. A good journal, Quick and fair outcome with a nice response from the editor, Good experience with every step completed in a timely fashion. solution? extremely long wait, and a really poor referee report. Will submit again. within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. 10 lines not even sure they read the paper. Referred to field, seems editor at least scanned and maybe even read the whole thing. After ref rejection at an AEJ submitted here we followed editors suggestion and submitted to JUE. After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. Reports detailed and helpful. Referee one was inexpert in the field, and suggested we cite mostly irrelevant papers published by the handling editor. One referee provided lots of helpful comments and even some ideas for future research. Overall, great experience. So there is zero feedback. What follows is a summary of what I see as the key advice, with links to other resources that go into more depth or do a better job than I can. 10 days for desk rejection decision. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable commentvery well run journal, fast and no submission fee! Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. Two reports. Referee reports were modestly helpful, though there was very little overlap between what the referees commented on. Editorial office very helpful. One report after 18 months. Could have desk rejected and saved us all the trouble. Excellent experience. Took about 2.5-3 months for first response which detailed a lot of work - two R & R decisions, each of which took about 2 months for referees to get back on. Very efficient, good reports. Cannot say the paper improved significantly, but it did not get worse either. Do you really understand American history? Bad experience. No letter from the editor. Unhappy with the outcome of course, but pleased with the process and the handling. Said they would refund the submission fee, which is nice. Contribution not new enough. I didn't know that JHR is a general interest journal! Have emailed for status to no avail. I love this journal. According to him one referee is in favor but the other is not. Copied and pasted the comments, some of which were not even relevant for the current version of the the paper. Then the referee gave their answer in 2 weeks. Economics Job Market Rumors. Less than two weeks from submission to editorial decision. Kinda pissed. Pretty bad experience. Fast turnaround and good comments. Editor decided to not even send the revised paper back to the referees. Editor Chandra took four months to desk reject a straightforward empirical paper. Poor quality reports. E. Two detailled and useful reports, one irrelevant. The paper is now much stronger. Law School. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. One good referee report, one referee who had no idea. 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. Withdrew paper after one year without signs of life. It was most likely copy-pasted from someone elses decision letter, and I know this because they forgot to change the name on it (yes, I received a decision letter with someone else's name on it). The whole process took about a little bit more than a year, which is very good. Economics Job Market Threads. On the whole very good experience. A complete discrage. Didn't really get a clear sense from the negative reports why they rejected. Very quick response from Editor (Otrok) after revision. Overall, the decision was not fair. We agreed with most of the comments. Mostly good comments, though not given much detail about main criticism. Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal. Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. Very nice editor. Report from the Editor. Very low process. Amazing turnaround. Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. Fair decision. journal has a reputation for being out of the mainstream of econ. Very unlucky submission: First round Reject and Resubmit. He said he liked my paper and thought it was inventive. Awful experience. (Shouldn't these cases be desk-rejected instead of being rejected after 6 months?). Generic desk reject within 2 weeks. Referee wrote a short report with easily implementable suggestions, suggesting revision. I didn't expect an accept here, but I def did not expect to be rejected on the grounds of such poor review reports. Overall, it was a smooth process. Great turnaround I guess? No refund. Katz was encouraging. Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Editor said there are two reports but I only received one. Employers can provide information about their ongoing hiring processes for candidates on the job market. Pretty helpful reports. Mostly decent reports raising fair points, OK experience. All the referees understood what I did in great detail. Fast and fair. Desk reject would have been more efficient, They editors are very efficient. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. Desk reject within 14 hours(!!!). "The empirical econometric novelty of the paper is not substantial enough ", Desk rejection within five days / Poor allocation of coordinating editor (microeconometrician for a time series paper), Quick desk rejection after manuscript ID was assigned. Two excellent (and supportive) referee reports. great experience. Extensive reviews though. Answer in 24h. Expedient. Overall very fast process. William A. Barnett is a very professional editor and reviews were helpful. I was very grateful despite the rejection. It was quick. Desk rejection based on lack of fit, altough there were at least 4 papers published on the same topic in previous years. Rejection after R&R. Overall, great experience despite the negative outcome, The WORST experience of my rather long life. Very efficient process, paper improved with referee comments. Skip Navigation. The editor is incredible. Reasonable comments from referees. Great experience. Reports included four small bullet points with badly written English. Two reports -- one good (mostly cosmetic changes), one very short. I declined the offer to resubmit. Referee reject without any comments after 14 months of chasing the journal. The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made. These advices do make the paper better. Home. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month.