Fair decision. But overall very very slow process. Editor told us to what extent the comment should be addressed. So unprofessional and shameful. Three rounds: one major + two minor (the last one being really minor, like copy-editing and missing references minor). Not very impressed. Fair and quick process. One useful referee report and one that was not. Was a longshot. Good experience, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. Zero constructive comments! Bad experience. SIX MONTHS for a desk reject. It just decided not to believe the empirical analysis. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. two referees with constructive comments, one referee rather negative and no substantial comment. Don't submit here. Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". One somewhat elaborated report. Had a paper published there recently. 3 reports. Editor was Barro. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. Quick turnaround, helpful comments, will submit again, Desk rejected in less than a week. But I'm a nobody. Two useful ref reports in the first round. Avoid that journal. The outcome (referee rejection) was acceptable but 5 month waiting is a large waste of time! Placements of Recent Economics Graduates. good process overall, Good experience. Editor clearly read the paper, sent a long email telling me how much he liked it but that it would likely run into trouble with referees. Two reports (half-page each) citing minor issues. Very efficient journal. Placement Officer: Professor Stefania Garetto, garettos@bu.edu, (617) 358-5887. Bad experience on the whole. The referees should be (far) better than the illiterate idiot they gave me! Editor obviously read over the paper and gave a couple of helpful comments. 2010 . Should have read the comments here about how badly run this journal is. Desk reject after 2 weeks due to bad fit. Very good experience. Gorodnichenko was nice. 2 years no reply, then short letter and reject, I would never send there again. Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. Despite the rejection, referees raised valid points that we can adress to improve our paper and provided a way forward. The whole process took about a little bit more than a year, which is very good. 0/10 would recommend. 1 suggested r&r other reject, AE decided to reject--fair decision. Moffitt desk rejected, suggested a field journal. 3 years for a desk rejection, after sending them at least 6 emails and filing a complain with the publisher. the? Good experience as far as rejections go. Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Avoid at all cost. 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. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. Professional co-editor and referee. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. Went on to publish in a better journal. Waited 6 months for one report, from which it was clear that the referee hadn't even read the paper properly. Three poor reports. Suggests a field journal. No response. After revision was done the AE decided to reject without sending to referees! Very efficient process, paper improved with referee comments. We asked to see the reports but the editor did not send them. 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? Desk after 1 day from Katz, very polite and parsing of the paper, although not GI. WD has become a true shitshow. However comments from the negative one are the most detailled and helpful. Will submit again. Recommend field journals, Useful letter from the editor Dirk Krueger (aprox. Harold Cole was excellent as editor. Mostly generic comments. Lastly withdrew for good after another six months. Editor: "Far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal". Desk reject - research objectives and empirical methods questioned, paper referred to field journal. The editor rejected it though. journal has a reputation for being out of the mainstream of econ. Extremely constructive and useful comments, clearly from people from diverse backgrounds who engaged deeply with the paper (2 economists, 1 polsci). Weak reports with many assertaions that were simply untrue. AFter 3 months of being "under review", I get this email: I regret to say that we are not able to offer publication to your paper. Very efficient journal, 3 very helpful reports from a coeditor and 2 referees. Avoid this shitty journal. 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. Unbelievably fast and helpful. Very constructive comments in the 1st round, quicking converging in the 2nd round. One reviewer gave very constructive suggestions. Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. paper rejected after one round of R&R due to extremely negative attitude of the one referee. Liked the paper but contribution too small. 1 report (from different referees) each round. Couple of comments why the paper does not fit (relatively reasonable). Also the editor gave us good comments. However, everything was fixed, and overall I am happy. 2 rejects, 1 R&R. Not very helpful reports. solution? Useful reports, good summary by editor. Unbelieveble how fast some journals work!!!!! Candidate Job Market Roster: Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. the? While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. The contribution of the paper is not suficient for the EJ. Welcome to the Mathematics Jobs Wiki 2021-2022 research positions page. very rigorous comments. Good experience overall. Happy with the whole process. 2 rounds after which referee recommended acceptance, but editor (Chakravorty) kept the paper for 7(!) Desk reject for paper being too narrow for the audience of the journal. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. All three schools are exceptional but UChicago is particularly strong in Econ as well as other core subjects such as polisci and philosophy. The paper was accepted after the first round revision. 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). Editor rejected. Editor response, not a fit to the journal, too theory! Even better input by editor. Very good experience, competent referees and quick feedback after the resubmission. Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. Tough but receptive referees. You needed 2 months to tell me that? Extremely outdated econometric "suggestions" and an overall lack of understanding. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. Also gave a lengthy extension. (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Still not a fan of this journal. 5 weeks for a desk reject. 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. Checked status online after a month to see the outcome. Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School, Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO), Majewska (TSE), Seibel (Zurich), Deng (UMD), Lesellier (TSE), Vanhapelto (TSE), Suzuki (PSU), Leroutier (SSE), Lorentzen (BI Oslo), Guigue (CREST), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Bou Sleiman (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Moreno-Maldonado (CUNEF), Khalifa (AMSE), Kondziella (IIES), Merilinen (ITAM); see https://www.helsinkigse.fi/events/category:job-talk, Assistant/Associate/Full Professor - Environmental Economics, Song (USC), Kwon (Cornell), Sileo (Georgetown), Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Hyuk-soo Kwon (Cornell University), Sean McCrary (University of Pennsylvania), Gretchen Sileo (Georgetown), Stephanie Weber (Yale University), Sadhika Bagga (UT Austin), Ricardo Marto (University of Pennsylvania), Martin Souchier (Stanford University). The reports were very useful and the referees seemed to have given the paper a very careful reading. Actually a nice experience. Referees did not understand the contribution of the paper. Revisions done in another two months and sent back to referees. I knew I shot too high. good reports. Department of Geography. However, I regret to say that it is a bit tangential to the main focus of our journal, and we are not able to offer publication". Great comments from editors and referees. Helpful comments received from reviewers. happy with outcome. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. Desk reject within 1 day. Reports were not fair but at least fast response. PhD Program Administrator: Mirtha Cabello, cabello@bu.edu, (617) 353-4454. Most graduates apply to 50 or more schools to hope to get one job. The AE finally conceded that I was right and the referee was wrong - but decided to reject the paper anyway! Suggested field journal. In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. Working on my R&R now. Quite fast luckily. No reason given. Useful reports, pleasant experience overall. It seems to me that this was an easy way for the new Editor to reject the paper! Editor provided some friendly comments. Which.a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject. Will definitely send again. Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. The referee reports were good. Overall, bad experience. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. Good experience and good editorial team. If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not). good referee reports (1 yes, 2 no). Referees were obviously a bad choice for this topic. All good, minor additions were suggested. That was also a very fast and good experience, though not the outcome I had hoped. The editor and referee claimed the results were nice but hardly adoptable to other more general problems. they suggested a more spezialized on topic journal. Form-letter rejection. Referee did clearly said that the main mechanism is not compelling but did not give a single word on why our argument is persuasive or what else we could do to improve. Clearly the referee was someone not in the field of the paper (Asset Pricing). Disappointing experience. Spent a week rewriting the paper according to requests of the editor ("put figures in the end of the paper" and such), then got a desk reject. My new favorite journal, Very clear instructions from editor for revision. I was pleased with the experience because I've never made this far with them. Submitted August 14, 2015. We have done that, after several weeks, no answer. 2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. Revise and Resubmit. AER, JPE), but taste a factor. Lots of puffed up explanation marks and faux outrage. Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper. Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. Job Market. At least the process was fast. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Rejection without arguments/referee report. Sent email to the corresponding editor after 6 months review, but no response. Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. Ljunquist is pretty passive. No reason provided, in line with the journal policy. Very satisfied with the experience. Clearly no effort was put into it. Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper, no longer a serious all purpose journal imho; "desk reject" after 6 mos on the basis of style in the abstract, Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded, One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end, Terrible experience.
Tondo Barangay Map,
Superflex Dynasty Rookie Rankings,
Articles E