The referee report was very poor. Good referee reports. He wanted to give the paper a careful read and this was not possible immediately. Crappy journal with crappy editor. It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. Lengthy, in-depth reports. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. At least response in 1.5 month. The comments are of bad quality and show poor knowledge of economics. In only four sentences, ref manages to contradict himself. It is a pity it was rejected, but I appreciate the quick response. 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. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. Nice experience, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. Ignored reputation of this journal being a small closed network (mostly WB) journal. Desk rejected after 3 days. Very good referee reports - largely positive but requiring some modifications, deleting one section. 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. Not only is it accepted, but it also becomes a much better paper now. One where the only material comment has a grammatical error that makes understanding it difficult? Kohlhase). Hence, terrible. ", Bad experience: six months to get one report plus a decision letter that looked like a desk rejection (which is ok, but not after 6 months). Reports were split. The report must have been farmed out to some grad student who couldn't write. Very efficient process, better than expected. Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. Engineering at HPE Same referee takes about half an hour to conclude the math is wrong, yet takes 5 months to submit his report. Editor rejected. Letter from the editor not so much informative. Extremely fast and helpful. It seems to me that this was an easy way for the new Editor to reject the paper! Referees tough & somewhat demanding. Economics Job Market Rumors . The third one very general and less useful. Pretty well run, can't complain. 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. Full of informative/wrong comments. Overall, good experience with IREF. One very thorough that discussed on every paper point.Good experience, out of scope for this journal, although the most cited paper in this journal also addresses the same research problem, Bad experience. Assistant Professor, Macroeconomics. Very fast process. Ref needed 6 months to produce a paragraph of a response. No refund. One useless report, and one very useful report. For the steep fee would have been appropriate if editor had written a few sentences about why they rejected. People need filters. Bad report, condescending. Disappointed with the result, but the experience was okay. Gave a quick explanation and said they did a thorough read of the paper. 48hr desk rejection with a weird comment from the editor; You did not address related marketing literature! Two weeks desk reject. Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff. They clearly help the author to improve their paper instead of rejecting it without trying to extract the best. Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING. A bit long for a short paper, comments were fair and detailed although they pointed the way to an R&R rather than rejection. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee. Best experience ever. 0/10 would recommend. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. Appreciate fast review and efficient process. Although my article had Nikkei 225 index in it they rejected it anyway! Will never try it again. Not a good fit. Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. Formulaic letter. Seemed like a very long time to only receive one referee report. He/she states that a particular model delivers a set of results, although I show that it does not. Letter by Concerned Economists Regarding "Contracting for Sex in the The editor simply did not read the paper, since he presented no specific comment whatsoever about it, nor any recommendation. 1 report was nonsensical and tipped it to rejection, two very weak reports, editor obviously did not read the paper, overall very bad experience. I then spent 2+ months revising, only to be rejected (after another two months), no new reports, but detailed comments from the editor. Reasonable motivations for desk rejection provided, Fast desk rejection, poor targeting on my part, desk reject but with useful feedback from AE. After 10 months, my manuscript was still listed as "awaiting referee assignment", and no one at the journal would respond to my e-mails about the paper, so I withdrew it. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. Constructive and helpful comments from the co-editor. And I've recently reviewed a closely related paper for the EER that got a revise-and-resubmit, so you'd think the topic must be interesting enough. Probably the editor took a look at my zip code, and told the AE that "this should be quick". The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. Will submit here again. He does not read the paper, or he has no expertise. The co-editor gave very specific, though difficult requests for the revision. No progress in six months although I send emails to push. Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. Desk rejection in 6 minutes with a "pretended" letter, which could be used for any paper. Highly recommend this journal for a paper that wouldn't make it to top 5. Economics Job Market Updates / Wiki I wish my coauthors would not be too sad being rejected. Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. After that, the R&R only took 10 days and we also tackled a minor comment from the editor. Took about two weeks. Two years ago, I had a different paper rejected by EER, with two good referee reports and an AE negative about it. The reason was that the, Andrew Samwick rejected within 2 days, Topic is too speacialized for EL. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Very nice editor. Analytic number theorists: your opinion on TK's claimed disproof of the RH ? So-so report. But the editor read the paper, and recommends Econometrica or JET or TE, Katz needed less time to skim the paper and offer a few good comments than I needed to write a one-sentence cover letter, It is a Finance paper. I dont care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. Excellent comments from reviewers. Fair rejection. Desk reject would have been more efficient, They editors are very efficient. will definitely try it again next time. Overall, very positive experience. Nothing more frustrating than paying to submit a paper that was desk rejected after 2 months with no reason given for rejection "I find the overall contribution too small to justify publication in AEJ". Journal response was quick. Please add AERi to the combo box. 3 weeks. One referee report after 11 months. Lots of puffed up explanation marks and faux outrage. 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. The referee acted as if I didn't cite and discuss papers mentioned in the report. Employers can provide information about their ongoing hiring processes for candidates on the job market. Bigger joke than the article I sent them. Great editor who was great at handling the process and chasing referees. FYI: Your editor sucks). completely ?misread? Referee comments generally useful and positive, but guest editor made desicsion to reject given preferences - fair enough really. In-depth, high quality referee reports. Good experience. Actually, it was overall positive. Great experience overall, Editor decided not to wait for the late referee not to slow down the process. econjobrumors.com Traffic Analytics & Market Share | Similarweb I would submit again or recommend this outlet! Avoid avoid avoid this outlet if you are looking for a serious journal that will follow a fair referee process. Boo! Job Description Linkedin.com. 3 months (!) Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. The saving grace is that it was fast. Two very good reports, one probably written by the editor. Split recommendations, editor decided to reject which is fair enough. Fast desk reject but zero useful information. It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. Also good editing support. PhD Program Administrator: Mirtha Cabello, cabello@bu.edu, (617) 353-4454. It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. avoid. Four line referee report written in a hurry before deadline and before ref obviously had to jet off on holiday. One good referree report, one positive but unhelpful, one negative and entirely useless. Three reports, all of high quality, within 2 months. Editor probably didn't go beyond the abstract. No indication that the paper was read. Very efficient editorial process by Ken West. 11 months for a rejection. Very helpful referee reports. submission was in 2017. Waste of time. Kind and informed letter from editor. Unfortunately the editor decides to reject the paper on the last round because he has concern about the paper. Good handling by the editor. No indication that the co-editor read the paper. Nice reports. The other report was useless. moderately helpful but whole process took too long. Took a long time for first response which suggested feasible changes and asked for a revised submission. Fair reject with detailed reports. Going into the ninth month with no response. Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. The overall comments are OK. Actually, not as bad as many people think.Reports by referee and AE were of little help (they raised a few valid points), but this can happen at any other journal too. Rejected as "Given the poor quality of provincial GDP statistics, CER has decided not to publish papers based on provincial GDP data for now until the true data series at the provincial level are reconstructed" but they are still publishing with this data see for instance Lv, Liu, and Li 2020 Fiscal incentives, competition, and investment in China. Title: Researcher Location: COLOMBIA JEL Classifications:. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. They pretend to look like an international journal however thay only consider studies related to Japan. 2 very constructive reports, speedy process after resubmission, 2 useless reports by refs who barely skimmed the paper, one completely mistook the tested var & misreported it in his comments, editor's comments (Bill Collins) were smug and obnoxious but shallow, Very disappointing. Desk rejected by editor, who said that editor in chief rejects ~40% and he rejects about the same. Resubmitted in 2 days, accepted after resubmission in 10 days. Very quick. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. Four months for a desk reject! Academic Jobs Wiki | Fandom The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. Still took 3 months. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. Pretty terrible experience. 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. Whole process super quick. Waiting was attrociious and final rejection not properly justified since reviewers went AWOL. Initial response slow, then extremely quick after R&R. At least they are faster than their reputation. One referee did read the paper, the other responded with odd arguments. Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. Generic comment of the editor. DK carefully read and gave constructive feedback. Second report very good. Overall good experience. so,? One very constructive and positive report from economist, and one worst-I-ever-recieved report from a law scholar (maybe). There was supposed to be a third referee report that was not received, which may have been the reason for the time between submission to decision. It took 1 year from submission to acceptance, but the journal was quick, I took to long to do the revisions. Very quick desk reject. Avoid this journal by any means. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. He further suggested an exercise that was already illustrated in 2 figures, 1 table and described in the text! Good reports. Desk rejected as outside the scope of the journal. One report was very useful and of very good quality, the other was of good quality but not very useful. Contribution too small. Waste of submission fee. 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). A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!! Overall, great experience. They will not respond to editorial office inquiries or direct emails to the editors. Fast reviews with reasonable comments. Two referee reports were really good. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. And once that was done, he wanted us to rewrite the article. Overall, very good experience. Desk rejected in 10 days because the editor wasn't a fan of the data. Next time, I will come back with a vip or friend of the editorial team to have positive a priori. Simply put, the reviewer does not believe in my results (simulations from calibrated macroeconomic model). Milner's an emeritus, what else does he have to do? Excellent referee reports and detailed feedback from the editor on what to focus on and what to ignore. Editor told us to what extent the comment should be addressed. One excellent referee report, and one decent one. Interesting but not a good fit. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. however,? Awful experience! It was almost like somebody pickpocketed and got my $600, had to pay $100 instead of the usual submission fee. Worst experience of my life. Editor read and carefully considered the paper. Very efficient, good reports. journal does not sound like a good fit for my research agenda. Editor offers insightful suggestions as well. Re-submission took a week to be finally be accepted. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. Most graduates apply to 50 or more schools to hope to get one job. Not very impressed. said it was a matter of fit. The reviewer didn't even bother to read after page 8. Editor and editorial staff excellent. No further comment from the editor. First round took 2 months. 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. First response in less than 3 months. Quick to online first. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. ", Fast response. Extremely poor experience. Quick turnaround. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. Helpful and fair referee reports. Actually, 57 months in total. Editor sat on completed reports for 2 months to give a two sentence rejection response. In print a couple of weeks later. Based on the large volume of submissions we receive bla bla, Unfathomably long time to first decision, referee comments impleid the paper was not read diligently, despite being just 4-5 pages. Editor recommended field journal submission. This is why our profession sucks. It is a very demanding R&R and we revise the paper a lot according to the suggestions, but it is worthwhile.
Fox News Political Cartoon Of The Day, Masonic First Degree Lecture, Waukesha Ymca Pool Schedule, Articles E