econ job market rumors wiki

Worst experience with a paper submission ever. 2 positive. It was almost like somebody pickpocketed and got my $600, had to pay $100 instead of the usual submission fee. 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. 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. Paper rejected by editor. AER Insights: Generic rejection without any thought or suggestion. forthcoming papers by the Chief editor shoshana. No other comments. 3 months for a desk rejection - no need to comment 4 months until desk reject. Desk reject after 3 days. One of the critics was not applicable, but the major critic was quite helpful. might be a once in a career event. No substantive comments about the content of the paper at all. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! One very low quality and unfriendly report. Online in 2 months. 3 sentences total, six months. My previous two research papers were also desk rejected by Barro. Suggest field journal. Submitting to JME first was really worth it. 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. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. I expected better from this journal. He wanted to give the paper a careful read and this was not possible immediately. R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. The reviewer was excellent, made the paper much better with his/her comments. After careful consideration, the JAPE editorial team considers the paper is largely a statistics exercise. "Thank you for your paper. Very efficient process. instantaneous rejection, however, without any comments, 5 Weeks for a desk reject without comments. Less than 3 weeks for the first responses (major R&R) then accepted in less than a week. 1 week: nice, but no fit with general interest. Shame on Co-Editor. One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. The manuscript improved substantially as well, thanks to the reports. Short unhelpful referee reports which ask to cite referees. It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. Sadly, from the comments of the editor it was clear that she did not read the paper careully either, otherwise she would not have written the coments we got on the rejection letter. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. Two reviews - one very positive, and one that was clearly from someone outside of the field that was not familiar with the methods or the literature. Decent reports; AE was a bit difficult, but ultimately helpful, Good reports and constructive feedback from AE; only 1 round of R&R. Great comments from editor. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. Eight weeks to get two very high-quality reports. Great experience! Four line referee report written in a hurry before deadline and before ref obviously had to jet off on holiday. Environment, Development, and Sustainability. 2 months after first submission of manuscript. Desk reject - research objectives and empirical methods questioned, paper referred to field journal. Fast desk reject. 3 reports, very quick. Job Market - Economics Never again. Resubmitted after 3+ months of work, but replies to referees went lost and paper got rejected. R&R in two months. Accepted after two rounds of revisions. Good experience overall. The negative one says there is no methodology novelty. Editor didn't even read the paper and rejected it. Referee comments were useful, editor clearly did not understand judging from his remarks, which made it frustrating. Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. Fair decision. 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. He, however, had the balls to apologize for the delay. Stay away from this journal if you do not have a connection from inside. reports. Good experience. R&R was helpful. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. rejected in exactly three weeks - editor said that the topic only gets published in JEBO if there's a special issue (which mine was not connected with). Made comments about Maximum Likelihood etc when I was using Method of Simuated Moments. First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. Probably the fastest journal I've had experience with. 5 days, paper is too specific for QJE, Helpman suggested another journal. One useful referee report and one that was not. My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. Good experience. Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). Editor noted that paper of an associate editor was not cited but did not mention the name of the paper. Disgraceful! A lot of small nit-picky criticism and some factually wrong statements about paper. Long waiting for 10 months, send 3 emails to ask, reply: under review, some useful comments from ref despite recommending reject. Overall, pretty speedy given my submission coincided with end of year grading season and winter holidays in the US. I suspect a tight club. The peer review process was fast. Fast response from the Editor. Arbitrary decision without sending it to refs by incompetent editor. Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. Desk Reject in one week for lack of contribution. 1st round 2 1/2 months. Demanding but helpful referee reports. It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. Main editor Wilson takes care of it. Was contacted again after another two years promising that my paper was to be considered, and say yes please do. Not sure why we didn't get desk rejected. Lasted 4 days! Desk rejected, one sentence given. Editor clearly read the paper. In all the rejection was fair. Fast and kind desk rejection. Great experience. The low-quality report won out Reject with two solid reports. Editor was our de facto 2nd referee. Editor says, "your paper poses only a very marginal contribution to the literature in theoretical economics. Not a great experience! 1 good report and 1 not so good. Thank goodness that there are more journals in health economics started. Two careful reports with good feedback. My experience with other journals when there is only 1 referee, the editor always provides a report detailing their reasons for accepting or rejecting the paper. Two very poor referee reports. Fairly long wait though. desk rejection in 2 weeks. Lowest quality referee reports ever received. Down side: reports are quite short: 1 paragraph each. This is why I'll never get married Economics Job Market Rumors Stay away! interesting and polite reports. Had to send several emails inquiring about the status. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. Some comments from the editor, some are useful. I withdrew the paper. Extremely poor experience. Expected a lot better from this journal. Highly recommended. Almost zero substantive comments on the technical part and not surprising that it was sloppy handling given that it was Pop-Eliches who was the co-editor. Rather slow desk reject. Worst experience ever nearly one year just to hear "not much new, therefore reject" 100 bucks for nothing. Can't complain with the decision and the entire process. I was politely told that I should have cited more JRU papers. Do yourself a favor: if you have a journal that fits the topic of this journal, just submit it to JPopEcon, LE or the new Journal of Economics of Ageing. Fair decision. Extremly disappointing for a journal which claims to be the number one field journal. If this journal wants to publish high quality papers, it needs to pick someone better than Joerg Baten who actually reads the papers before he accepts/rejects, etc. Editor argued I had observational data and no identification, hence instant rejection. Good referee reports. It seems like one of the reviewers do not even read my paper.The suggestions are nonsense. Helpful comments from referees and editor. Comments didn't make sense. Very smooth process. Obviously an inevitably subjective decision, but given this, the handling was very fair. Good experience. Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. Quite fast I'd say, but comments were simple. Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. Useless experience. Both reviewers were positive suggested R&R. Detailed comments. Submission refund. 2 reviewers, 1 poor, 1 quite demanding and useful. Mean and non-sense comments from one referee so that the editor had to apologize. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. One paragraph that dismissed four years of work. The referee must be some leading scholar in the field and I just wanna say thanks to him/her. Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. More importantly, the analysis is flawed by a number of major shortcomings. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. Resubmitted within the same day. Paper eventually got accepted at higher ranked journal (!). The Editor sugested the JIE. Referee one was inexpert in the field, and suggested we cite mostly irrelevant papers published by the handling editor. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. great reviews and useful comments for ref, only 1 referee report 3 sentences long by reviewer who did not read the paper, Good reports but very slow to get a rejection. Revise and Resubmit. 4 months for a desk rejection based on what it appears to be a very superficial reading of the abstract. Got the refund soon after request. Overall good experience. Comments were meant for another paper. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. Inquired about my submission after 7 months, got answer that revision time "totally depends on the reviewers". Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. The other referee has no idea what I am doing. I am just not part of the club. Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. the editor was helpful and nice though. Overall smooth process. Came back with a reject, but reports were at least somewhat useful. referee and AE comments, OK at best. 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. Therefore, we have decided not to review the paper. Good ref reports. It took me a lot of time to deal with unqualified comments. Will submit again (other work, of course) on the basis of professionalism and treatment. Two reports with mixed view. However, he suggested that I submit my paper to a theory journal. Contribution not new enough relative to the existing literature. Referees all showed an understanding of the paper and suggestions were useful. He/she states that a particular model delivers a set of results, although I show that it does not. The reports were good and helpful. Two fantastic referee reports within 1.5 months. Modifications responded mainly to the good report. Neither referee is hostile. One very constructive and positive report from economist, and one worst-I-ever-recieved report from a law scholar (maybe). Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. Sent email to the corresponding editor after 6 months review, but no response. extremely long wait, and a really poor referee report. After 12 months the paper was not even sent out to review or rejected despite 10 emails. Only one referee report. Then one round of R&R and second referee changed his mind. desk reject in 2.5 hrs? Home. Rejection came on Easter morning. It seems they rushed to reject it. avoid. Paper very close to editor's (Rogerson) field of interest. Average Quality R-Reports, one missed one has good comments. Very fast process. Economics Job Market Rumors . Reports were of moderate quality. UghhhI will probably withdraw the submission, It is the worst experience I have ever had with a journal. 3 months was a little long to wait, though. Quick and professional handling by the editor. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Finally withdraw. Fast. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. Rejected in 4 days, editor said work was done net resting but not broad enough. 1 useless report, and second was useful report. Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. Overall positive experience. Andrew Foster took a full month for a desk without a comment. Referees asked for useless extensions and took more than six months in each round. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. Still my favorite rejection of all time - used Shakespeare in a footnote, and first referee (whose English was subpar) said that the footnote was "very poorly written." Submission is waste of time. Empirical results didn't match their political priors so recommended rejection. It was very smooth. Referee claims no revisements were made after substantial revisements were made and detailed. **** this journal. Bazinga! Highly recommended. When we inquired after 6 month, we were told to be patient. Reason for rejection was editor thought paper belonged in `less selective' journal. Editor recommended field journal submission. And mentioned class struggle. 2 Reports. He just wanted me to write a different paper. Rejected, but editor and referees were fair. Good experience. Referee didn't think the contribution is significant enough, so straight reject. Job Market and Placements | Faculty of Economics Clearly the paper was not good enough for the JIE. rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report. Very slow process. First referee constructive and positive. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in No feedback at all. Fast process and 2 helpful ref. No negative comments from referees on the substance, but one referee just didn't like it. He suggested a more suitable outlet. No reply yet. After doing what the, very stupid, referee asked he said "not a big enough contribution". The referee just want to reject and did not want to spend reasonable effort to read your paper. Very, very disappointed! That is, the handling of the submission took almost 4 months, I think this is unacceptable: what is the point to have quick referee reports if the editorial team takes such a long time? Bad experience. "not enough contribution". Very pleasant process. 2 pretty decent referee reports.Of course one said "the quality of the model and empirical evidence is below the standards for a journal like the QJE. Going into the ninth month with no response. Editor rejected, but I have a feeling that both refs recommended R&R for different reasons. Desk rejected with short but informative comment within 2 days. It is not clear why the referee does not like the paper but it is clear he does not need 5 months for such a report. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. I pulled the paper and send it elsewhere. Desk reject for paper being too narrow for the audience of the journal. completely ?misread? Pretty clear that whoever desk rejected didn't even read (or couldn't understand) the paper. Accepted after two rounds. Reject due to the non-response by the referee. Referees tough & somewhat demanding. $ 200 is high for an immediat desk rejection, editor was helpful in replying to inquiry regarding reason for desk rejection. No refund. Both referees agreed and specifically pointed out that the manuscript should be published. NEVER submit there if you are pre-tenured. Paper was accepted two days later. Disappointing. One of the best outlet for phd students. Would try again. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Referee did not bother to read the paper. The bar is high for Exp Econ. referees appear to understand the area. Tough but fair referee reports. Desk rejected after more than 5 months, avoid, International Review of Applied Economics, receive first response within 2 weeks. EJM - Econ Job Market Nice reports. One positive one negative. One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. Interesting but not a good fit. The results just didn't fit their priors. No input from editor either. Reasonable decision. Desk rejected within two weeks. Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. Desk reject within 5 days. Fair reject with detailed reports. The referee was ideologically opposed to our paper more than anything else. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. Editor misread the title and barely read the abstract. Interviewing at the ASSA meetings. . One was favorable, the other was on the fence. One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. Good strong editors. I stopped reading after that). 2.5 are very positive. Lots of puffed up explanation marks and faux outrage. Very fair. of? Very nice experience! Referee cites one crucial assumption to kill the paper, but the paper does not make that assumption, and clearly explains it. 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. The referees should be (far) better than the illiterate idiot they gave me! this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. That sounds fair to me. City of PhoenixPhoenix - USA, Senior Analyst - Economics Department 1 short and useless report, 1 incompetent (was the reason the paper was rejected) - the referee could not understand that his major criticism was trivial and was dedicated one line in introduction, 1 favorable report. Great experience, one of the referees truly improved the paper substantially. Less than a month for two strong referee reports on a non-experimental paper: useful suggestions and some parts of the paper were obviously not clear enough, although no intractable issues so rejection was disappointing. Three rounds. however,? fluent ?in? "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". Once that work was published, he finally accepted the paper. Poor referee reports. Silly comments from AE. Suggested to send to another journal! Desk rejected in 25 minutes. useless reports referees didn't seem to read the paper and appeared not to be experts .. Desk-rejected in 7 days: "the paper lacks sufficient political economy content to be appropriate". Great outcome. Overall great experience. Editor probably didn't go beyond the abstract. faculty) positions. Pretty helpful reports. Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda. He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. Great experience. Suggested field journal. Very helpful comment. One unprofessional and clueless referee. Editor was polite. The status has been "Pending Editor Triage" for 10 months. Wayne State University (Economics) View all current job postings. Avoid this shitty journal. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. Ljunquist is pretty passive. Very good experience. Terrible editor.

What To Do When Your Boyfriend Thinks You're Annoying, Mab Celebrity Services Hologram, James Robinson Girlfriend, Elasticsearch Node Roles, Articles E