Very professional way of handling the process, Very helpful report which has permitted to increase the quality of the paper. Good reports, but what a punch in the gut. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided. Wish the outcome was different, but the turnaround time couldn't have been better. Would submit again. Both referees were a bit too negative, but the reports were useful. One short and one longer report. great experience. Didn't make the paper better at all. Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!! Very efficient. 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. Don't know why Elsevier is silence about this behavior from Batten. Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. Never submit again. This post is a continuous work in . Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. Although paper is accepted, i would hardly deal with them in the future. Insane process and utterly inexperienced referee. Absolutely pathetic. Very efficient and fast. Never submit to this journal again. Ok referee reports. Excellent and rapid process, with clear comments and instructions from referees and editor. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. Very easy suggested an appropriate transfer and levied the submission fees, with editor providing quite helpful comments. One great referee, one ok. Super fast process. 1 on the fence. Editor Bruce Hollingsworth suggested an alternative journal. The editor brought in a tie breaker 3rd, who wrote a very terse reject. Sent a specialized financial accounting paper. One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. completely ?misread? The editor (Mallick) gave us some additional advice and was ok with the result. Getting a reference to AEJ Applied was worth it. Some of the people at my lower Costas Meghir responses all submissions. 2.5 months to get a RR. Paper desk rejected in 4 days. Editor decided based on 1 report. Received desk rejection from one of the editors quoting results completely unrelated to my paper. I had notice that it was sent to reviewers in. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Quick, professional, very acceptable decision. Assistant Professor, Macroeconomics. Desk rejected thoughtelessly with curious comment paper read more like a book, 8 month desk reject with no reports--JPE is dead to me, desk rejected in a bit over a week, not clear who handled the paper. Editor made some quick comments and recommended 3 journals a tier below. Referee's comment was useful but contained too many extensions. He only mentioned that I failed to mention a lot of papers who were all by the same person. Applying for academic jobs. Great experience. Very poor handling by editor. Editor recommended field journal submission. Very good referees. Brief comments from the editor. Amit Khandelwal desk rejected a RCT health paper in 2 days with no specific comment..no refund of submission fee, I do not belong to their club, Very quick turnaround (~4 days), encouraging response suggesting field journals. Ref #1 created new issues after I addressed his first round. I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. Suggested a field journal, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. good reports. Very clear that two of the three referees hadn't read the paper. Editor suggested field journal. Editor also gave comments. Desk reject after 30 hours, helpful comments from the editor. Editorial work was very fair - gave an R&R despite split reports. The other referee has no idea what I am doing. Woman completes quintessentially English mission to eat 244 scones across U.K. Submission fee refund. Still got rejected. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. Response was less than two months from submission -- super quick. Please add AERi to the combo box. 3 weeks. 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. Ref reports of high quality, mention half a dozen suggestions for robustness which perhaps amounted to too much for the editor to let this go to revision. 1 month + 10 days for desk rejection. The referee told us to delete the literature review. Very slow. Awful experience. No flyouts yet. Good experience, even my paper was rejected. That indicates he/she did not finish reading the paper. Was not notified by the decision through email, found the decision in manuscript central during a random check. Our paper went through four rounds and finally accepted after one year of its submission. Editor provided some friendly comments. Nice words from the editor. Bad experience. Very fast. Very fast decisions. The editor decided major revision. I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. Bar-Isaak is the editor in charge (much better than others like nocke). Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). Helpful comments. Two excellent referee reports. 2nd bad experience for me with this journal. Will never submit here. 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. Unacceptable waiting time. The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. To summarize, this reviewer apparently thought he had better English than Shakespeare. Two thoughtful refs, one clueless. We do not need dumb editors!! One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor. 2 minutes passed between receiving editor name an receiving desk rejection. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. Fast turn around. He, however, had the balls to apologize for the delay. Online in 2 months. Our paper is rejected after receiving one referee report. Co-editor and one referee attacked the paper for something that the paper already explicitly adresses. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. We'll see. Great experience. Poor reports. View Board. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied. He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. Explains longish time to first review. . Would not bother again. Drill down into the main traffic drivers in each channel below. very well-run journal, Very thoughtful referee reports with clear suggestions for improvement, as well as recommendations from the co-editor for better suited journals, editor read the paper and rejected with some useful comments. Horrible. Very good experience, competent referees and quick feedback after the resubmission. Smooth process, a bit too much work for this journal. Fair decision. Long waiting for 10 months, send 3 emails to ask, reply: under review, some useful comments from ref despite recommending reject. Editor was insufficient in evaluating our paper and rejected it due to a paper cited in the reference list! it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. Some useful comments, most misreads and poor understanding of model. Which editor handles the paper mattered. 2 days from submission to desk rejection. Accepted without revisions. Got accepted after 2nd round. Two horribly low quality reports. Two of them suggested a possible solution. Ultimately fair. Rejected after one round of review despite all referee comments being addressed. Helpful comments from referees and editor. One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. The other report was *atrocious*. Instead, the reviewer says you did not cite a literature that is totally beside the point, the main concept of your paper is not mentioned not even once in that literature. Not enough of a contribution for JPE, suggested AEJs. Good reports. Fair and quick process. Reasonable referee report. All of them are much speedier and you will actually get helpful comments that will improve your paper. Courteous notes from editor&co-editors when first response was delayed. 2 weeks). ", 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. Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade, Fair and efficient process. The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. A short piece from an expert in the field. First experience with this journal. Editor Ian Walker gave us a fantastic referee report. Finance Job Rumors (489,486) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,772) Micro Job Rumors (15,235) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,012) China Job Market (103,527) Industry Rumors (40,348) Reject because aparently would not fit in their journal. It seems to me that the editor rejected based on how well the article was written, rather than the substance of the work. Culter said that there was backlog at JHE. Editor accepted the paper after we made some modifications recommended by the referee. Very positive experience. Painfully crushing rejection, as all referees agreed it was a good paper, but had some valid concerns about length and possible general interest contribution. Offers and negotiating. 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. 7 months for 2 reviews (and one reviewer was already familiar with paper). The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. Bad experience. Will not submit again. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. My paper was on Covid and one ref was clearly not an economist, suggesting medical/health indicators, references and logic; impossible to satify I think with economics arguments. Second one was about 15 lines. They took the paper seriously. Very different experience from the first time. One almost non-existent referee report (basically two lines just saying the paper is not broad enough), one very detailed and overall positive report. Desk rejected after 3 days from Shleifer. 2 constructive reports that improve the paper after 2 months. On the downside, the time between each of the two rounds of R&R was longish. But then, it took 20 weeks until we got the acceptance. AE decided to reject! Pretty useless referee reports. Good experience. 18 days, no indication that either adstract or paper was read. is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? Repeated enquiries ("hey, its been a year now") have been followed by profuse apologies. Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports. Constructive referee report; said needed more robustness checks, but difficult in word limit. 3rd round 1 month and then accepted. 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. Department of Geography. One very good report, the other OK. Absolutely disappointed by extremely poor response from the editor (Horioka). Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. Will never submit to this journal again. Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. One single bad report. One positive and two negative reports. Actually a nice experience. One of those cases where the paper though rejected improved significantly as a result. helpful comments; quick process; good experience. Neither of the two reviewers seemed t have read the paper. 2 reports and 2 rounds. The other referee was of low quality. desk rejected in a week. Campus visits. 48hr desk rejection with a weird comment from the editor; You did not address related marketing literature! We did. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. Very helpful comments and suggestions from three reviewers and editor (Angeletos). Desk rejection based on lack of fit, altough there were at least 4 papers published on the same topic in previous years. Home Help Search Welcome Guest. The referee did not read the first sentence of the paper and was not familiar with the literature. 3 week desk reject. I had a paper that was to be revised and the review was very positive. After this thrid email, the paper moves up and it takes 11 weeks to get referee rejection (quality fo the two reports: poor, they wont improve my paper). 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. Just stay away! The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. Didn't refund the submission fee. Poor. Reject and resubmit. Short unhelpful referee reports which ask to cite referees. Editor suggested top field, decided not to send to referrees due to "narrowness of topic." Worst. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. Not too bad an experience. Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. My paper on the "The Impact of MTV's 16 and Pregnant on Teen Childbearing" was quickly accepted due to its relevance and awesome nature. Comments were sharp and precise and resulted in a much better paper. Once that work was published, he finally accepted the paper. useless report from "expert" regurgitating my explicitly stated caveats, B.E. The editor's comments are not informative. In doubt, Spier decided to reject the paper. The editor suggested an alternative outlet, which was where the paper eventually got published. Good experience, strong feedback. Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. 1 R was for R&R, another for weak R&R, another for reject. Some conflicting recomms that editor didn't address. Please Login or . Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. Editor obviously read over the paper and gave a couple of helpful comments. One report was very constructive and helped improve the qualitiy of the paper. Rejected for not general interest, brief comments by editor and a "finance scholar". Avoid at all costs.. The article went online first very quickly after acceptance, which was nice. Very fast. First decision in 2 months. It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. Lowest quality referee reports ever received. Desk rejected in 6 hours. (are we a bit paranoiac?). Long wait for such an outcome, 3 reports and Editor provides some good suggestions within 10 weeks. But written by big shots. Overall decent and professional expert reports. I wrote the editor but nothing changed. Non professionalism of editor and referee: one referee asked to modify the paper and upon seeing the changes did reject saying that I should have done the way it was done in the first place. Fast Review process. Unanswered letters to editor by the 6th and 12th months after submission, only got reply after getting in touch to editorial office. Paper drastically improved through process. almost useless and the editor is too slow. I believe that if that is the reason it could have been desk rejected. No feedback and no useful suggestion in the rejection letter. The reviews were short and gave some good feedback. Helpful and fair referee reports. One was more helpful than the other. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. On the whole very good experience. very efficient process but experience depends crucially on editor. 10 days for desk reject. The process was fair, with good pace. Very good referee reports. R&R in two months. Less than two weeks from submission to editorial decision. I was surprised these two letters resulted in the overall reject. Desk rejection by QJE does not convey the quality of the paper. Job Market. I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. Desk rejected in 10 days. Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help. One good quality referee with good comments and suggestions. It was clear the editor asked a former student to be the referee, I guess the editor does not feel positively about the paper. rejection. Two reports -- one good (mostly cosmetic changes), one very short. Nice words from Editor. Special call. The other clearly did not understand what is going on and wrote some junk. Instead, she just re-sent me her rejection (from when she was a referee before). Overall, I was disappointed not by the outcome per se, which is part of the game, but by the poor judgment of the referee. I think that's fair, since I had also suspected the paper might not be a great fit. Couldn;t get second referee so editor said he read carefully himself. Desk/ref rejected. Great experience! Desk rejected the next day. Reviewer number two said the paper had no relevant contribution beyond those of a paper recently published in a top journal. Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. Editor Prof. David Peel is a very nice guy. Referee said he just didn't like the paper. Disappointed it wasn't sent out for review, but can't fault them for speed! The paper is a solid analysis but does not sufficiently add to our understanding. AE followed majority reports without additional insights. I heard back really quickly with helpful comments. Top scholars if it comes to RCTs, but no broaded view. Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. Will submit again (other work, of course) on the basis of professionalism and treatment. 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) Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. It seems that the referee did not read the paper just pinpointed assumptions he did not like to reject. 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. Rejected, but editor and referees were fair. Much better process and better reviewers at JAERE. 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. Very fast reject and they sent my check back. short straightforward paper, should take max 2 hours to read carefully,still under review, editor (Hall) non-responsive, waiting 30 months for response, editor not responding to inquiries. Overall good experience. Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. The paper is now much stronger. Desk reject after 1 month. Both suggested rejection. Good experience, worth the 100$ :). He suggested a general interest journal. Paper was accepted two days later. Desk reject in 1 week. Both referees read the paper, one of them even found some mistake in the proof. No response to requests. Two very poor referee reports. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. "In order to speed up and improve the submission process for both authors and referees, we have raised the number of papers that we reject without seeking reports.". Editor's letter mentioned a 2-1 split in favor of rejection, so she rejected. Desk rejected in less than one month. 20 months for this type of journal is super long. One positive review, one negative, referee took the side of the negative. Every time I'm impressed by how precise the reviews and suggestions are. Received 3 high-quality referee reports within 4 months. 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) AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not). Do you really understand American history? Also, did not bother to understand the theoretical contribution. One referee report after 11 months. Worst experience so far. Amazing efficiency. High quality editing. Four RR rounds. 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. Recommended to aim for field journals. Ass editor wrote some useful comments. Quick to online first. It's quick, but the reports are really bad and unhelpful. 4 months for a letter w/o referee report. Burak Uras (Tilburg AP), Caitlin Hegarty (Michigan), Diana Sverdlin Lisker (MIT), Suzanna Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Garima Sharma (MIT), Ruozi Song (USC), Heitor Sandes Pellegrina (NYU Abu Dhabi), Juanma Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Katherine Stapleton (WB/Oxford), Dario Tortarolo (Berkeley), Jonah Rexer (Wharton), Anna Vitali (UCL), Livia Alfonsi (Berkeley), Binta Zahra Diop (Oxford), Shafaat Yar Khan (WB/Rochester), Althoff (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Vaidya (Northwestern), Chan (Stanford), Bodere (NYU), Pernoud (Stanford), Kang (Stanford GSB), Minni (LSE), Otero (Berkeley), Bodere (NYU), Vergara (Berkeley), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Carry (CREST), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Ospital (UCLA), Lanzani (MIT), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Kennedy (Berkeley), Souchier (Stanford). Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. Helpful comments from the editor (besides the usual thy shall cite my papers). The other reviewer I suspect of being a graduate student with not so good comments. Very quick rejection (24 hours), with nice words from the editor, who obviously read the paper. Submission to a special issue. 1 very good referee reports, 1 mediocre, editor was nice. It took them 13 months to tell us that the article was better suitable for a different journal, Generic Desk Reject - Fortunately they only took 2 days. Quite useful to provide further extensions, Fast processing and three excellent referees that helped to substantially improved the paper. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. I wish we had drawn a different editor. Comments are constructive. Three reports, two reports are with doable suggestions, one is low-quality. Bit disappointing given the high fee. Mean and non-sense comments from one referee so that the editor had to apologize. This page collects information about the academic mathematics job market: positions, short lists, offers, acceptances, etc. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). No comments from the unknown handling editor. The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. Referee 1 happy with resubmission (no further comments), referee 2 suggested rejection or major rewriting. She admitted having forgotten about it until 8 months later and sent us a rejection. Desk rejected in a week. The most disgusting journal I have ever encountered. 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). PhD Program Administrator: Mirtha Cabello, cabello@bu.edu, (617) 353-4454. Yes, he can ask for odd things.
Pitbull Puppies For Sale In Nashville Tennessee, Funny Heartbreak Memes, Regina Meredith Husband Zeus, Pros And Cons Of Cold Calling In The Classroom, Articles E