within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Showed as "awaiting editor assignment" for three months, then a desk reject. Great editor with quick response time too. Bad experience. best submission experience. Good comments, helped improve the paper. Waiting was attrociious and final rejection not properly justified since reviewers went AWOL. Strongly recommend submitting there. Three months. Good reports. Three reports, two reports are with doable suggestions, one is low-quality. Good process (and none of the coauthors are from 02139). Fast editorial process. Will not submit again. 2 months between submission and final decision! Outrageously poor process. ", Took two months to desk reject, although initial email assured of a very short response time for desk rejecttions, Desk rejected because of formatting issue but invited to resubmit; took a few days for desk rejectioin. Job Market. Nice experience, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. Editor slept on the paper's submission history and the reviewer's dishonesty. It ended up being published in a higher ranked journal. We thought we'd receive useful reports even if we got rejected, but this turned out to be a total waste of time. Ridicolous report: 3 lines where the referee asked to address "geopolitical" issues. Seems to be unfit the reviewing editor's preference but the handling editor was kind though. One seems to be written by a first-year bachelor student. Very pleasant experience. Not a good fit. 3 reports in 28 days. rejected by editor, saying should submit to other similar journal. Reject. This would be fine if desk-reject was motivated by "not a good fit" or such. Fast desk reject. low quality and very short referee report Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text. The decision is motivated by acceptable reasons and suggest potential alternative journals. One obviously senior who doesn't care, openly says didn't read some parts. 4 months for a desk rejection based on what it appears to be a very superficial reading of the abstract. I stopped reading after that). I didn't know that JHR is a general interest journal! fluent ?in? Very pleasant experience. Two decent referee reports. Crawford rejects although refs and editor recommends revision. Very fast reject and they sent my check back. One useless referee report claiming that we did not make robustness checks in a journal of 2000 letters! Very quick and very fair. Referee clearly didn't read the paper carefully. Revise and resubmit. Only one referee report. In all the rejection was fair. Editor was a bit harsh. awful experience. 1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals. The paper is not of the interest of SCW readers! Editor does not even both to check referee letter. the? Dislike for the computational results for no good reason. Good experience. Very professionalthe referee reports were fine but rather tough given the quality of the journal, 3 rounds, all comments addressed, rejected because 1 reviewer did not read the last version. 2 Weeks. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. 2 strong reports with valid empirical critiques, 1 less so. Not for the faint-hearted. not broad enough, it seems that JHR considers themselves as a general interest journal. One Referee wrote nonsense, the other was good, the editor added nonsense. One good referree report, one positive but unhelpful, one negative and entirely useless. We asked to see the reports but the editor did not send them. Two very helpful reports and encouraging letter from AE. E Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; F3 International Finance; F4 Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance; Banco de la Republica, the Colombian central bank, is interested in hiring a new or experienced Ph.D. economists to work as a researcher/economist.. At least they gave decent feedback. Revision took about 1 week, one of the reviewers requested additional data/info about the methods used. Rejected in 4 days, editor said work was done net resting but not broad enough. Very efficient process. Garbage. One detailed report. Home Help Search Welcome Guest. 7 months waiting for one poor referee report rejecting the paper for an unwarranted wording issue. Pretty stupid rationale based on lack of methodological innovation. Good experience. 2 referee reports: 1 so-so and 1 extremely shitty. What takes so long? No reason provided, in line with the journal policy. Nothing that could not be fixed in 2 days, still reject. But the comments helped. We do not need dumb editors!! Amazing turnaround. 11 months for a rejection. Long time to edit and format after acceptance. Very unprofessional. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. 2 shortish referee reports one fairly positive the other fairly negative, editor decided to reject based on lack of originality. 3 months for a desk rejection - no need to comment 4 months until desk reject. Thorough ref reports with good comments. Rejected with a 1-page AE report, after almost 3 months. Editor efficient, but strange experience: Two referees were very favorable, but the third referee rejected by quoting a "flaw" which was in fact correct. Desk rejected within a week, no fee refunds. Desk reject within a few days. Long wait for such an outcome, 3 reports and Editor provides some good suggestions within 10 weeks. Editorial process was efficient and fair. Editor was insufficient in evaluating our paper and rejected it due to a paper cited in the reference list! desk reject in 2.5 hrs? Nice words from the editor. Editorial office very helpful. Super fast review. Desk reject after 2 weeks due to bad fit. Decent reports. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. 6 months to first response, then a two sentence ref report, one sentence of which was clarified extremely quickly and one that entailed a ton of extra work. Terrible single line report from editor (after 16 months of waiting). One very helpful referee report, 2 not so helpful. Bad experience overall, although the reports came quickly. Referee recommends conditional accept but AE strongly against publication. One ref in favor, one against. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. May 2019 - Post-doc, Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at Virginia Tech Carilion, Roanoke, VA. Spring 2020 - Nanjing Audit University, Gulou, Nanjing, China. One very good report. Seemed like a fair decision. Fast and uninformative. Short turn around time. Two weeks desk reject. 3 months to R&R; 2 weeks for second round; 1 week for final acceptance. editor obviously read the paper (indicated by reference to appendix figure in the letter); nice and helpful comments. Desk reject in a few hours with very impersonal email. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. Very complementary and helpful reviews. Desk reject with what appeared to be constructive comments but on closer inspection were worthless (points already made in the paper). 1 reject and 1 R&R. One useless report, but the other one is decent. Strong and professional editors! Two very poor referee reports. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. A black bitch barks at East Europe. The editor did not read the paper and just sided with the hostile referee. Editorial processes were very fast. Less than 2 months for the decision with 2 reports, which is very quick. Desk rejected after a week with no comments. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. After 10 months waiting, I had a revise and resubmit decision. Well-run journal. Two reports. Bad experience. Both referees were concerned about identification, but did not suggest how to fix. Robert J. Barro desk rejected the paper in less than 24 hours. Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. Poor reports. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Overall good experience. Less than insightful comments by an editor clearly hastily read the paper. Editor gave me chance to convince other referee. Think I got lucky. the journal is recovering. Good experience. Very good experience. 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. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. Contribution not new enough relative to the existing literature. 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. Both reports were very shorts (one was just a few lines). two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. Reviewers gave substantive comments and significantly improved the paper. Revision accepted three hours after submission. Fast and fair. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! Suggested field journal. Signaling. main message was that paper is a poor fit. After 3 weeks this would have been acceptable. Disgraceful! Tough but fair ref reports that raise valid questions. Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. He does not read the paper, or he has no expertise. WBER changes editor and the new editor (Pavcnik) reject the paper. 1 good, 1 okay and one bad review. Helpful for resubmission somewhere else. Advisor: Prof. Caterina Calsamiglia. A very similar paper came out a month after our paper got rejected, new paper's authors are closely tied to this journal. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. I am making revisions. Waiting for R&R results. 48hr desk rejection with a weird comment from the editor; You did not address related marketing literature! Desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. 3 years for a desk rejection, after sending them at least 6 emails and filing a complain with the publisher. Great experience. 2022 Job Market Candidates . Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. Poor / no justification for decision. Too us more than a month to revise and still had doubts. Answer in 24h. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. Referee clearly did not read paper closely because the bulk of his (limited) comments focused on why I don't address an issue that is addressed prominently in the introduction. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. Comments were non-constructive and some were even wrong. Great experience. It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. 6 weeks for a desk reject. is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? Referee report was positive and recommended R&R. Letter from the editor not so much informative. Would try again. avoid. Good experience, strong feedback. Pretty fast, 1 high quailty report. bargaining? Not helpful in any way. Editor did not catch these oversights. No comments whatsoever, in an un-signed email with 2 generic sentences, Desk rejected after one week with kind words from co-editor and recommended field journal, Poor justification, pure taste by Debraj Ray. Editor actually read the paper. The main sugguestion is to come up with a theoretical model and erase half of the work done. A bit slow but overall a good experience. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. So they had no idea about basic econometrics. Job Market. The other reviewer I suspect of being a graduate student with not so good comments. 14 days. Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade, Fair and efficient process. Victoria Ziqi Hang (U of Washington), Freddie Papazyan (UCSD), Lukas Bolte (Stanford), Christine Szerman (Princeton), Alfonsi (Berkeley), Raghav Malhotra (Warwick), Regina Seibel (Zurich), Philipp Wangner (Toulouse), Anna Vitali (UCL), Morten Grindaker (BI Business School), Tony Fan (Stanford), Elena Ashtari Tafti (UCL), Xiao Shan (Zurich), Andre Sztutman (MIT), Via Twitter: Matranga (Chapman), Barreto (Sciences Po), Coly (PSE), Galvez (Banco de Espaa), Petracchi (Brown), Miglino (UCL), Casella (UPenn), Morzenti (Bocconi), Perdoni (Edinburgh), Possnig (UBC), Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson), Borghesan (Penn), Van der Beck (Swiss Finance Institute and EPFL), Ferey (LMU), Seibel (Zurich), Acquatella (Harvard), D'Adamo (UCL), Vattuone (Warwick), Mugnier (CREST), Decker (Zurich), Morazzoni (UPF), Decker (Zurich), Altmann (Oxford), Jin (BU & CMU), Diegert (Duke), Guigue (CREST), Leroutier (SSE), Ramakrishnan (WUSTL), Souchier (Stanford), Banchio (Stanford GSB), Sullivan (Yale), Acquatella (Harvard), Jin (BU), Diegert (Duke), Herstad (Chicago), Schaner (USC),Gudgeon (West Point), Wiseman (Berkeley), Kochar (USC), Li (MIT Sloan), Ostriker (MIT), Zou (Oregon AP), U.S. Ali Kutan is the associate editor, finally accepted the paper. Total waste of time. Not recommended. Useful reports. It just decided not to believe the empirical analysis. Quick desk rejection. One referee suggests alternative data sources for robustness even though it took as a year to hand-collect the original data. It too me the editor 13 months to desk reject. I don't know what to add. The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. Quick desk reject (3 days). Actually took nearly 15 months. Insightful comments by both referees and editor. Worst experience I have ever had. Desk rejected in the 24 hour window. Serious referee report, but without any helpful particular suggestion. Comments are helpful. Desk Reject, No Comment, Horrible Experience- THEY DO NOT REFUND the submission fee. High quality editing. Three mediocre reports. Portuguese Economic Journal* Great process. your paper, after some updating to reflect the recent complementary literature, would be more appropriate for a more specialized journal. Eight months is a long wait though. Editor cites two but only sends one. Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. In 1974, the Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) began printing a periodical, Job Openings for Economists (JOE) (Coles etal. She said only 1 (very short but with no objections) of 3 of the referees responded and was not able to find new referees. Referee seemed have read just the abstract. Extremely helpful comments that significantly improved the paper in the end. This Rumors site allows only a maximum of 12 months from submission to decision. Checked my e-mail and editor rejected the paper. Received acceptance on the same day i resubmitted the paper. Hello! What would be a fair solution to racial reconcilation issues in the USA? Submission fee refund. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. The referee also pretended that I did not develop a two-sided hypothesis (comment like "why didn't the author think of this? AE rejected without commenting on referee report, At least a quick report with one good comment that can help to improve the paper, but with the other points highlighted by the referee were discussed in the paper. Horner is a disaster! Decision by editor (Mark Taylor): minor revision and resubmit. Avoid this journal. The referees made good points. Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. 2 good, one grumpy referee report. Positive feedback from the editor. editor was nice enough to drop a page or so of precise and useful comments. Avoid avoid avoid this outlet if you are looking for a serious journal that will follow a fair referee process. Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. 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. One line "referee report". Finance Job Rumors (489,527) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,815) Micro Job Rumors (15,246) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,029) China Job Market (103,535) Industry Rumors (40,351) Pretty terrible experience. Strange desk reject by editor, claiming methods weren't relevant to policy. Referees lukewarm, Foster took time and effort to explain his decision, also indicated a number of pathways to strengthen the paper. Received 1st response within a month with a very helpful referee report. 6 weeks for two reasonable referee reports. Just a one-paragraph report saying that the results are not "novel". No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. Editor didn't read the paper. Desk rejected after 1 month. Desk rejected, one sentence given. Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. Helpful reports, overall good experience. Refs gave some okay minor comments but no big, subtantive critiques. quick decision by the editor. Bar-Isaak is the editor in charge (much better than others like nocke). Complete waste of time and money. (310) 206-1413. 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. Reject and resubmit. Jerome Adda was editor. Strongly recommend this journal for health economists! We believe this policy serves contributors who are saved months of unnecessary delays. 6 months was a lot to wait for one good report though Good feedback. Referees tough & somewhat demanding. Accepted two weeks after r&r. Took 9 months for acceptance. Referee report was reasonable and improved the manuscript. Fast. No comment from the editor,ridiculous journal. Good experience and good editorial team. Click here for more information. Both referees suggested papers to be cited in the literature review, which seem like their own papers. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. Main reason for this is that they assigned a different associate editor on the second round which I find highly unusual. Received 3 high-quality referee reports within 4 months. Unfair letter from Emi N. Great letters from four referees and three of them are very positive! Very slow. Editor recommended field journal submission. Journal always replied to me saying it is delayed and I finally withdrew after 2 years with no response. The paper was a very good fit though. We may have been aiming too high. Very fast and efficient. Technical issues handled by non-experts. One nice and one not nice referee. 3 pages of helpful comments by the editor, suggested very good field journals instead, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society). Another 2 months and a second round of very minor revisions. The negative one is essentially saying "it's not game theory so I don't care." At least was fast at just over two months. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. Theory in one field sent to AE in another field doing empirics. Good process. Too long waiting time. Great experience! Afwul experience. Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. Overall, the reports were good so no complains. Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. Editor said all refs must agree for acceptance but only one ref report provided! Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. Avoid if possible. The Editor suggested a more traditional public finance journal. Referee did not even sent a report after year and a half. Tyranny of the single review. others ref reports okay. 16 hour turnaround with nice letter of thoughtful comments suggesting more specialized journal. Suggested to submit to RSUE. Fair referee reports, but I had to wait pretty long. She was formerly director of macroeconomic policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, and a Section Chief at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, where she worked in various capacities from 2007 to 2019. Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions. Very efficient indeed!!!!!!! The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. One very constructive and positive report from economist, and one worst-I-ever-recieved report from a law scholar (maybe). Great process, fast and fair. 2.5 months review. Ref reports quite useful. Moffitt desk rejected, suggested a field journal. Useless experience.

Ymca Simpsonville, Sc Class Schedule, Pizzly Bear Aggression, Banana Pudding With Eagle Brand Milk, Articles E