This particular group controlling urban economics now will not let any differing view go through AER and JUE. Would choose again. Two days between handing in the revision and acceptance. Desk rejection with no comments in 3 weeks. The ME provided helpful comments on top of the two reviewers'. Excellent referee reports and detailed feedback from the editor on what to focus on and what to ignore. Thought already in literature. After 8 months of waiting, got the shortest referee paper ever. Two straightforward reports calling for revision. Will submit there in the future. Submission fee not refunded. Editor rejected the paper, but it was not unexpected. In 1974, the Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) began printing a periodical, Job Openings for Economists (JOE) (Coles etal. Constructive and very detailed referee comments improved the paper. May have a good chance at a higher ranked outlet but if considered speed and diversification then it was a good and correct decision to submit here. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO)
Econ Job Market Rumors Accounting | Now Hiring Very good referee reports - largely positive but requiring some modifications, deleting one section. Horrible editorial process. Also very fast. After two interventions got 1 ridiculous report. Recommended.
Managing the academic job market - Chris Blattman 2 strong reports with valid empirical critiques, 1 less so. That's right. Pretty smooth process, with Eric Leeper being very kind and helpful. Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago. Quick desk rejection from the Editor (about a week). Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! Excellent reports. Slightly more informative than a desk rejection. Horrible experience, late response, useless report. Letter gives no mention of reasons for rejection and even unclear on paper's final status. 10 months is too long to get back. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Paper sent to an editor with completely different interests. Fair report but not anything that couldn't be corrected in R&R. The reports were largely useless. Very good reports and editor was clear about what were most important points to improve in the revision. Very short to the point referee report. Fair and quick process. 3 polite reports say it is interesting but too simple for aer. Rejected after revision for reasons that had nothing to do with the revision and should've been brought up on the first decision. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. Extremely bad experience with this journal. Good experience in general, the editor recommended a field journal. Amazing efficiency. Would submit again. Wide disagreement among reviewers about paper, but one very helpful report. One positive report, one negative. Editor's letter mentioned a 2-1 split in favor of rejection, so she rejected. Unfortunately the paper is rejected but I hope the reports help you improve the paper for another journal. They keep the submission fees, very efficient cash cow! Would try again. Accepted version was greatly improved. Comments were helpful. Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE. Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality. Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal. Very quick handeling, decent reports. Though nothing extremely deep, comments were of acceptable quality. It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. He even signed the letter. A fairly high quality report, useful, within 24 days. moderately helpful but whole process took too long. Came back within 4 hours, nice letter by Katz with suggestions of where to submit, 5 days for a desk reject. Fair decision. Stay away from this journal if you do not have a connection from inside. Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. A bit slow, but kindly acknowledged by the editor. All referee reports were gave entirely stylistic comments with no real grounds for rejection. It seems they rushed to reject it. more months, before rejection based on superficial comments. Pretty efficient turnaround. Engineering at HPE Bunche Hall 8292. I published my article in a very decent journal later. Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject. Terrible report. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again, Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees. One very good, detailed, and positive report. Tyranny of the single review. Unhelpful, rambling. Initial response was quick. I get it. I am very surprised by this unprofessional oversight. When we chased, we received detailed referee reports and R&R quickly, but were given just 2 weeks to make massive changes to the paper - we withdrew and used comments to publish elsewhere. Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. Had a paper published there recently. Could have desk rejected and saved us all the trouble. Completely unacceptable. 3 months for desk reject with superficial comments is ridiculous. One decent and one sloppy report, 1 good report, 1 bad one, decent turnaround time. Fast desk reject on subjective grounds. Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us. Great experience, one of the referees truly improved the paper substantially. Very quick rejection (24 hours), with nice words from the editor, who obviously read the paper. Expected much better from this journal. journal has a reputation for being out of the mainstream of econ. My impession was that the editor did not understand the paper the first time (hence no comments the first time) and clearly did not understand the unprofessional behavior of the referees. The International Review of Law and Economics has recently published the article "Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War" by J. Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. My paper was transferred after rejected from a higher ranked journal. one very weird report, asking to cite an unknown WP, from a PhD student One R&R with minor rev, one inscrutable report, and one unfair report with incorrect claims. One where the only material comment has a grammatical error that makes understanding it difficult? Editor Michele Boldrin did a good job handling the paper. Though the paper had been to several before so by the time it got to IRLE it was pretty polished. The rejection came with a useless referee report. Not sure why we didn't get desk rejected. Very fast. Cannot say the paper improved significantly, but it did not get worse either. Finance Job Rumors (482,056) General Economics Job Market Discussion (727,619) Micro Job Rumors (14,915) Macro Job Rumors (9,755) European Job Market (100,185) China Job Market (102,275) Industry Rumors (39,946) Excellent comments from reviewers. Now? Desk reject in two weeks. 10 month without any reaction from the editor. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. Very, very disappointed! At least they are quick! I waited for seven months, only to receive one superficial referee report. When do I give up? The journal is higher than B. 7 weeks. Useful comments from the editor (Stefan Nagel). Recently Announced. The time to response is not long as well. It details the following: Preparing to go on the job market. Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. Two weeks and they not assigned a manuscript ID number. Two referee reports: one decent, one poor. Desk-rejected after one week without any substantial or specific comment, apart recommending to submit to a specialist journal. Economics Job Market Rumors. But the comments helped. Long and bad reviewing process. The second time I was told that my results were "not surprising". Competent referee reports, although one of them extremely hostile. Constructive referee report. Nothing substantial to improve the paper. Editor is a little slow. I resubmitted in January, and the paper was accepted with minor revisions in March. I am not sure the referee knows the topic area well enough. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. Ref reports quite useful. Perhaps the worst experience ever. The editor's comments are not informative. Bad experience. 6 months to desk reject with little reason. 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. At least it was fast. Best experience in a long time. Very slow. General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,806) Micro Job Rumors (15,245) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,027) China Job Market (103,534) An uprising journal so I recommend people to publish here. With editor for 1.5 month. Reports only partly helpful. He gave thoughtful comments about how to better target elsewhere. superficial comment.
Economics Job Market Updates / Wiki Clearly he had read the paper. Pok Sang Lam rejected with few comments. The report I did get back (in the form of an email from the editor) was not very informative (referee claimed "expressing time series as deviations from trend does not produce a stationary time series". A bit long for a short paper, comments were fair and detailed although they pointed the way to an R&R rather than rejection. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. Very good referees. Mark Ramseyer. The journal is likely to go up again. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable commentvery well run journal, fast and no submission fee! Reasonable decision. Some fair some unwarranted comments. A very positive experience for a filler publication. Rejected in 4 days, editor said work was done net resting but not broad enough. The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. 2 positive. Editor had different opinion. Comments by R1 were helpful, but 100+ days for 1 report is too long. Nothing that could not be fixed in 2 days, still reject. However, the editor (Mallick) kindly suggested to add papers from this journal ("As there is not citation from this journal when the journal has published several papers on this topic").
Roald Dahl ebooks 'force censored versions on readers' despite backlash Well argued rejection with helpful comments. Co-editor rejects because contribution is not big enough to warrant publication. Pretty helpful reports. Wasted 17 months. Standard experience with the JHR. Editor clearly read the paper and claimed a referee did too. A good journal, Quick and fair outcome with a nice response from the editor, Good experience with every step completed in a timely fashion. Excellent reports that really improved the paper. Not general interest enough. About 14 weeks from submission to referee reject. The equation to be estimated is not well explained and basic econometric issues (e.g., the problems related to the inclusion of lagged dependent variables) are not discussed. The three reviewers really went through the proof, I was a little impressed by their comments. 4 months with the editor before being sent to referees. One was a paragraph long and basically did a lit review. Horrible experience! Excellent comments from MN, good experience for a desk rejection. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting Decision based on 1 one-paragraph review that didn't refer to anything specific in the paper. The third one very general and less useful. Editor wrote half a page and was polite. Revision accepted three hours after submission. At least was fast at just over two months. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. Desk rejected after 3 days from Shleifer. Getting a reference to AEJ Applied was worth it. High quality, detailed ref. Conveyed no sense at all that anyone even looked at the paper. the website was hackedthe report was good, and the associate editor is very nice. Overall a very nice experience. Very pleasant experience. Poor. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. Two solid referee reports.
Hassan Afrouzi Assistant Professor of Economics Columbia University Job Market Candidates | Department of Economics major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). Not general interest enough. 2 very good reports and one poor report. We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. RR was done with care and useful overall. Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines). 1 month desk reject. Desk reject in 4 hours. Conley is a very nice Editor. Seems largely like the referee just didn't like it and the editor wanted there to be more significant results (publication bias at its best). He/she states that a particular model delivers a set of results, although I show that it does not. Desk rejected in 2 days with a very short report "better fit for a finance journal". my ?defense,? Really bad experience! Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. Needless to say, the error is not as such, Bad reports (full of mistakes, pointed out to AE but didn't work), Assigned to an associate editor and got desk reject. While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. Very pleasant experience. -> Toilet. Very long 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. 2 weeks to generic desk reject with no comments whatsoever. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. Long wait for such an outcome, 3 reports and Editor provides some good suggestions within 10 weeks. Waste of money. I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. I wouldn't try this again. Referees all showed an understanding of the paper and suggestions were useful. Very good experience! One useful report out of three. An associate editor left some comments, which showed that they read at least some of the paper. 2 days to get a desk rejection. Basically max 3-month turnaround from their side at any stage. rejected after 2 rounds of revisions. Positive comments from the editor. Paper was internally valid-(ish) but not a big enough contribution. They like the paper but the contribution not enough for Econometrica. Second referee made some useful suggestions. Editor suggested field journal. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. rejection. Very good and useful referee reports. Not really a complaint though as there is no submission fee and the process was timely. 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. Will definitely send again. Overall a good experience that will help the paper! He said he liked my paper and thought it was inventive. 2/3 ref reports were detailed and useful. Overall good experience. desk rejected in a week. It was clear that the referees read the paper and provided appropriate comments. One extremely thorough and helpful report, one shorter but still raising valid points. desk rejected after thee months. The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! said it was a matter of fit. Rather slow desk reject. 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). Slow. Reasonable referee report. Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. In case of desk rejection, they should return the submission fee. Your paper is not fit for public choice try with public economics. Here is all I received: "I regret to inform you that as part of a pre-screening process applied to all submitted manuscripts to the JDE, I have read your paper and have decided not to put it into the regular review process. 1 positive and 1 negative report - Editor rejected. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. Quick response within three days. (It doesn't seem like a club journal. Excellent experience, the editor was clear on what is required after first round RR. $100 fee refunded. Very good and helpful referee reports even though it is a rejection. Two referee reports. Rejected after 2 weeks. At the time the editor had still the paper sitting on his desk. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point.
What was the Dittmar scandal at Michigan/Ross in the old days? Friendly email from editor, interesting reports from referees. Fast review process. Quick first response with major r&r. Editorial work was very fair - gave an R&R despite split reports. The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made.
Job Market and Placements | Faculty of Economics Editor says, "your paper poses only a very marginal contribution to the literature in theoretical economics. The bar is high for Exp Econ. Desk rejected after 23 hours. Revised carefully and resent, then they sent to another editor and another reviewer whose report contradicted the first and was very vague. If you want a fair treatment - stay away from this journal. Editor was a bit harsh. Lowest quality referee reports ever received. 7 months for 2 reviews (and one reviewer was already familiar with paper). NEVER submit there if you are pre-tenured. Job Description Linkedin.com. Desk rejected after one day due to poor fit. The editor's letter was well-written. A black bitch barks at East Europe. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. Editor obviously read over the paper and gave a couple of helpful comments. Pretty good experience. Woman completes quintessentially English mission to eat 244 scones across U.K. awful reportreferee asked "why is this a problem?". Desk rejected after 40 days. Do not waste your time with this journal. The referee must be some leading scholar in the field and I just wanna say thanks to him/her. Rejected, but editor and referees were fair. Clearly the referee was someone not in the field of the paper (Asset Pricing).
Job Postings | The Econometric Society (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Good experience, Referees on the fence, rejection because editor does not like topic. Desk rejected within two weeks. Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. Desk rejected in 2 weeks, editor recommended sending the paper to a field journal. four reports. Otrok rejected within 7 days; considerable comments on the paper, though the three major points are either just wrong or addressed (one of them prominently) in the introduction of the paper. Got desk reject within 2 weeks. Good experience overall. One good referee report. Very quick response. Second round was down to one ref and editor, third round was just editor. ref report had useful but not overly comprehensive suggestions.