Unanswered letters to editor by the 6th and 12th months after submission, only got reply after getting in touch to editorial office. The first revision took around 5 months. Initial demanding R&R. Nice editor. Editor delayed a lot. 2 reports minimal work, 1 report some work. Desk reject after 3 days. Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit. Not a good referee match given papers subject matter and therefore not very useful comments. Pretty good experience. Worst experience ever. Research Assistant (Pre-Doc) Law and Economics. A very positive experience for a filler publication. Unfair letter from Emi N. Great letters from four referees and three of them are very positive! very comprehensive report. 5 weeks to first response. Not a great experience! However, once the paper was assigned to referees, the speed was normal. Econ Job Market Rumors Accounting | Now Hiring Great comments from editor. Two referee reports very useful, pointing to the same concerns, one of them quite positive and friendly, providing numerous pathways to pursue in the future. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. Grossbard handled the paper and accepted conditional on rewrite around her useless and poorly cited old work. Referees rejected. Moderately useful reports. Comments are constructive. It was quick. This journal is completely a piece of junk. If you need a fast turnaround, this is not the journal for you! It is run by "Kirk", [1] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. I do not think that the referee understood my paper. Will not b submitting here again until editorial board changes. Got a form letter. Will avoid in the future. Good reports. Formal letter in less than 10 days returning my manuscript. After revising the paper based on the comments of two referees, the Associate editor chimed in with his useless comments to reject the paper. Editor didn't read the paper. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. Editor accepted it. Overall, paper first sent in November and accepted in next August! I wonder how an editor can accept such low-quality output from the referees. Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. Desk reject after 2 months. The whole process lasts less than a year from submission to acceptance. is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? 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. Very quick process! The editor did give us advice to split the paper in two, although he didn't really provide a justification for rejection. JEDC is well run. Editor didn't believe our identification. It took me a lot of time to deal with unqualified comments. Rather pleasant experience. Very Fast. 2 very constructive reports, speedy process after resubmission, 2 useless reports by refs who barely skimmed the paper, one completely mistook the tested var & misreported it in his comments, editor's comments (Bill Collins) were smug and obnoxious but shallow, Very disappointing. Worst experience so far in my career. Helpful comments from referees and editor. The new editors did a good job, Just a joke, 2 years of "under review" for nothing, two useful comments with one minor, another some work, Good comments, nice time management from the editor, efficient process. Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. Also sent some emails to the editors but have no replies. Overall very fast process. Great experience! Two rounds of R&R, final acceptance after second round within 5 days. It is probably not surprising that the editor simply failed to understand the theoretical model and the referees had zero understanding of the empirics. Accepted without revisions. RR time was only 2 weeks, no bullshit nitpicking. Resulted in much better paper. Reject because apparently would not fit in their journal. Bad experience. Quick first response with major r&r. Highly recommended. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. The referee also pretended that I did not develop a two-sided hypothesis (comment like "why didn't the author think of this? extremely long wait, and a really poor referee report. Bad experience. Such along time frame for such a poor assessment of the paper. 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. Incredible experience: referee said he/she didn't like the paper. AVOID it. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. Would try again. Fast. For the fee would have been nice if the Editor had written a paragraph about why they rejected. Reports were pretty good. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. NEVER submit there if you are pre-tenured. A very pleasant experience after 5 rounds of really bad reviews. Good reports with decent suggestions. Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. other outlets are suggested. Actually, it was overall positive. That's not true. Long time to first response and had to chase up editor, but comments were helpful and editor was very engaged in the revision process. Really unprofessional. Good report, positive rec. Very good referee report. Desk rejection after 8 days. Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. One positive (R&R) and other two had valid concerns I could have clarified better ex-ante. The whole process took about a little bit more than a year, which is very good. Academic Jobs Wiki | Fandom 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. Would send here again. Editor also gave very detailed description of the necessary changes. Smooth process. A bit of wait but ok for econ standards. 2 decent reports. Low quality comments from Frank Sloan. A complete discrage. Would submit again. Submission fee not refunded. Desk reject within two days. The referee reports were good. Recently Announced. Response time was decent. reviewer knew an aspect of the literature and appeared to promote his own unpublished paper under review at the same journal. All comments seem easy to answer. A very detailed and fair review of our research, providing a balanced judgement of our achievements. AER, JPE), but taste a factor. One referee gave very constructive comments, but referenced three papers by same person (I'm guess that's who referee was). The referee completely misunderstood a *very* basic primary school model and then went on to criticize and complain about the empirical results. Editor was Mogde. My paper was in "submitted" status for almost 5 months when made a query. The first note of the referee claimed that I didn't do something I clearly did. Fast response from the Editor. Probably the fastest journal I've had experience with. 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. It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Good for knowing what people didn't like, but not clear how to improve. Generic letter from editor. Two short referee reports straight to the point. Bad experience. Best experience in a long time. Comments were sharp and precise and resulted in a much better paper. Avoid that journal. Even though the outcome is positive, I blame the editor for not selecting competent enough referees to begin with. The discussant in the shitty conf gives better comments. Paper drastically improved through process. Very good experience! But editor rejects. It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. Worst experience of my life. Very fast, two high quality referee reports. Referee comments were pretty minor. One referee said "take it", two said "we dislike coauthor, he published something similar in psych journal, do not take". happy for a quick decision. I resubmitted in January, and the paper was accepted with minor revisions in March. Useful comments from the editor (Stefan Nagel). The literature review was complete! Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. Excellent comments from MN, good experience for a desk rejection. One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. Proved to be quite true. Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. Still, refreshing for honesty. said it was a matter of fit. Good comments, made the paper better. 2-pages report, few suggestions. very quick response and a useful referee report. One referee for sure did not read the paper as pointed things which were actually in the paper. No additional comment from the editor. Development Economics, Family Economics, Gender Economics, Domestic Violence Durandard, Tho: Kellogg School of Management . Contacted them, told me they will try to send it out to reviewers. Better to avoid. The editor suggested an alternative outlet, which was where the paper eventually got published. submission was in 2017. Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). Got a form letter in 10 days. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. quick process, helpful reports and editor comments, Kind reject from the editor after a week, providing reasons why the paper was rejected, 6 months to receive 2 reports. Useless comments. relatively high quality referee reports, huge amount of work needed to format the paper according to the editorial guidelines as they receive little typesetting support from publisher. Editor read paper and gave good comments, but ultimately rejected. One was more helpful than the other. one of the reports was literaly 3 sentences. Horrible process. get first response in 28 days. Very long wait. No comments on the reason for rejection was given. Desk rejected in 10 days. The latter may be fine but it is clear that the referee did not read the paper very carefully. Four months for a desk reject! Decent reports, rejecting for fair reasons. Under two month for two reports. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. Desk rejected in 8 days. The editor picked a new (hostile) referee in the 2nd round. One low quality (taste-based) referee report. No feedback at all. I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided. One referee openly mentioned s/he doesnt like the method used in the paper. 2 months for desk rejection is awkward. The first response took more than I expected, but the referee's comment was very constructive. It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. It took more than 2 months for desk reject. Some valid points, but overall Kahn's criticism was thin. Very helpful feedback that made this a better paper. Awful experience. Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. Got most thorough, informed, and useful referee reports in 5 years. Two referees. Two referee reports, one engaged and constructive, the other written in incredibly poor English that took issue with some phrases I used. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again, Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees. The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. First decision in 2 months. Within a week, Laura Schechter clearly went through the paper and give it a thought with a couple of helpfull comments. Helpful and fair referee reports. Efficient process, stuck to advertised timings. Two excellent (and supportive) referee reports. Two fantastic referee reports within 1.5 months. 2 weeks to receive desk rejection. Hassan Afrouzi Assistant Professor of Economics Columbia University The results just didn't fit their priors. Quick, professional, very acceptable decision. Home | Economics Job Market Rumors What a joke! Technical issues handled by non-experts. The lack of referee reports makes me think it is the latter. Brief comments from the editor. Fair and quick process. Harrington and the anonymous reviewer. Will submit again. Nice words from Editor. Good experience. Down side: reports are quite short: 1 paragraph each. Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. Very bad reports from non economists. Two useful referee reports at the end of the third month. Second round 4 months before acceptance. After doing what the, very stupid, referee asked he said "not a big enough contribution". Quick response from referees and editor. Terrible referee report referee made contradictory statements and econometric mistakes in report. Economics Job Market. Economics Job Market Rumors Off Topic Technology. Journal: Utilities Policy (was not included as a journal to chose). I would submit again or recommend this outlet! City of PhoenixPhoenix - USA, Senior Analyst - Economics Department One very good report, the other average-to-good. The manuscript improved substantially as well, thanks to the reports. 9 months to one ref report which was not helpful. The paper was accepted after one round of submission. Good reports. quick. Very unlucky submission: First round Reject and Resubmit. Referees mostly wanted me to provide more background and a deeper policy discussion. The process was very fast. Never deal with stupid journal anymore. 3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal. Desk reject in a week. Rejected in 10 days. This? The referee seemed to be familiar with the broad topic of the special issue, but not with the specific subject the paper dealt with (e.g. Editor was Barro. There are some great papers in the journal; I would think it would get a higher impact factor. Although my manuscript wa based on stochastic processes, editor rejected it since they were not expert in applied econometrics. Comments dubious at best. Really improved the paper. No comments at all from editor other than generic stuff. Faculty of Economics Austin . One decent and one sloppy report, 1 good report, 1 bad one, decent turnaround time. But the comments helped. ", Editor had serious problems in getting referee reports although on this topic there should have been at least 20 potential referees. 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. 1 R was for R&R, another for weak R&R, another for reject. Shame on you, AE. AER:Insights - Larry Samuelson, Very polite, slightly more than standard rejection letter, saying - not a good fit, although enjoyable. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates | Economics Department Pretty rough coments from an editor who clearly did not get the point of the paper. Avoid this shitty journal. Not a fit to the journal! Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Althoff (Princeton), Bolte (Stanford), Cai (Northwestern), Colon (Harvard), Ederer (Toulouse), Kleinman (Princeton), Lanzani (MIT), Morazzoni (UPF), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Mukhin (LSE AP), Nguyen(MIT), Rivera (Columbia), Sandomirskiy (Caltech), Seck (Harvard), Xu (Stanford GSB AP), https://business.uc3m.es/en/seminars Brogger (CBS); Gabriel (Bonn); Karpati (Tilburg); Ballensiefen (St. Gallen); Mazzola (Erasmus); Terracciano (SFI), Morazzoni (UPF), Giocomo Lanzani, Rui Da, Theis Jensen, Antoine Ferey, Arthur Taburet, Pauline Carry, Marta Morazzoni, Clare Balboni, Suzanna Khalifa, Fedor Sandomirsky, Chao Ying, Vishal Kamat, Chen (Stanford GSB), McCrary (Penn), Rigato (Harvard), Guerreiro (NW), Lauletta (UC Berkeley), Castro (Princeton), Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Cai (NW), Crews (Chicago), Reyes (Berkeley), Muoz-Blanco (Trinity College), Amrico (UBC), Chiara Aina (Zurich); Giovanni Morzenti (Bocconi); Nathan Hancart (UCL); Regina Seibel (Zurich); Vasily Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA); Pauline Carry (CREST); Bruno Conte (U Bologna / UAB); Riccardo D'Adamo (UCL); Hugo Freeman (UCL); Jonas Lieber (Chicago); Alistair Macauley (Oxford); Philippe van der Beck (Ecole Polytechnique); Francesco Mazzola (Rotterdam School of Management); Gabriela Stockler (UAB), Victoria Barone (UCLA), Aina (Zurich), Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA), Conte (U Bologna / UAB), Stockler (UAB), Casella (UPenn). Reviewing all the documents, she does not like the paper: rejection with 800 words of blabla. Special issue editor started to referee himself. Desk rejected the same day! Terrible referee did not understand LATE and simply could not be satisfied. Some decent comments nevertheless. The other report also helped in improving the paper. extremely slow. Editor rejected. Probably he sent the paper to referees because he couldn't desk reject it, but his mind was made-up before hand. Welcome to the Mathematics Jobs Wiki 2021-2022 research positions page. fair and efficient process. Nice process and outcome. Desk reject within two weeks. Weak reports with many assertaions that were simply untrue. Very efficient process. RR was done with care and useful overall. Was a longshot. Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. Which.a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject. Desk accept? Two weeks and they not assigned a manuscript ID number. Good experience, worth the 100$ :). Editor from outside of the field (empirical corporate fin) did not think that my paper (ap theory) is interesting. Recommended field journal, and it was in fact eventually published in the top field journal. Editor efficient, but strange experience: Two referees were very favorable, but the third referee rejected by quoting a "flaw" which was in fact correct. Process seemed very fair. The AE was gentle and actually read my paper. 2 minutes passed between receiving editor name an receiving desk rejection. Super efficient handling by Prof. Sarte. Overall good experience. Editor picked reasonable comments, asked to take into account suggestions, accepted the paper after the referees agreed that what I did is reasonable. Extremly disappointing for a journal which claims to be the number one field journal. I needed to contact the editorial office to know who the editor was, if the paper was sent to referess and etcc, and this after more than a month that the paper was submitted. two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. The transfer offer was helpful, though, since we did not have to pay a submission fee in order to send the paper to the other journal. Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports. Outrageously poor process. It took the referees / editor 5 months to look at my revised script to then just accept it without any further comments. Second round took 30 minutes, from submission to acceptance. Courteous notes from editor&co-editors when first response was delayed. 1 report half page long. nice experience. Boo! But first response took a whole year. Paper desk rejected in 3 days. Desk rejected within 10 days. desk rejected in 3 days. Paper was long and too dispersed at first, but the managing editor (Baptista) liked it, and the reviewers asked for changes while being receptive. Desk rejected by Sarte in 3 days without comments. Took 5 months in total, 2 reports, a paragraph each. Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. Will never submit here again. Not big enough contribution. 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"). The paper got rejected anyways. It took almost two month for a desk reject. Three mediocre reports. Very complementary and helpful reviews. The editor, Gideon Saar, was lazy and did not read the paper. good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. The saving grace is that it was fast. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. I will submit again. 2022-2023 China Job Market Wiki Economics Job Market Rumors Woman completes quintessentially English mission to eat 244 scones across U.K. Desk reject with generic letter at 3 weeks. Young Economist Rankings | IDEAS/RePEc - Research Papers In Economics Are you seriously so focusing on submission fees instead of research itself? Good helpful report asking for few corrections. For a short paper, it took quite a longtime for deskreject without a single sentence relating to the paper. Superficial comment. However, I had issues with production, they uploaded the wrong version of my paper etc, and it looked like it wasn't even copy edited. Couldn;t get second referee so editor said he read carefully himself. They are also very slow! Ok referee reports. multiple rounds, one of round took about a year. Really unfortunate waste of time. quick process but the editor provided no information and was impolite. waiting 19 months as of today, sent 3 reminfers, Hall nor anybody else from the journal havent responded so far to any of my emails. 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. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. Suggested to submit to a good journal. 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. Took 3 rounds for editor to realize terrible referee was a crackpot. Recommended reject because he thought the sample of countries wasn't broad enough (despite it being a paper on a specific set of countries on purpose, as explained in the methodology). Contribution not new enough. Very quick response. After 6 months I got an extremely low quality report; looked like the reviewer had no idea about the paper or even the field in general. Rejected with one referee report in just under a month. The second editor rejected it. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. Actually, 57 months in total. EER to toilet, the editors are clueless. Desk rejection in one week. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. Journal response was quick. re?write ?the ?paper ?with ?the ?help ?of ?some one? Two reports of middling quality. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement. No complains. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. Pok Sang Lam rejected with few comments. Came back with a reject, but reports were at least somewhat useful. Great experience. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. What is left to say? Desk rejected in less than a week. She admitted having forgotten about it until 8 months later and sent us a rejection. Not general interest enough. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. bargaining? Referee reports OK. cannot complaint about reports but could have been faster, bad reports, of the type "i don't like it". Reviewers did not understand anything. In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. Editor did not even read the paper correctly. Despite perceptions they do desk reject. Job Market. Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper. Good comments from 2 referees, the other did not appear to have read the paper well. Sent a specialized financial accounting paper. Said the paper was to mathematical/econometrical for the journal. A long wait but not very helpful comments. No negative comments from referees on the substance, but one referee just didn't like it. High submission fees. Editor says "..his delay is mainly the result of needing to get a second editorial assessment which suggested this paper's arguments are less likely to find a responsive audience in our journal's readership".
Which Statement Most Accurately Summarizes Presidential Power, Caravan And Motorhome Storage Near Me, Royal Caribbean Shuttle Service Miami Airport, Caila Clause Supernanny Now, Articles E
Which Statement Most Accurately Summarizes Presidential Power, Caravan And Motorhome Storage Near Me, Royal Caribbean Shuttle Service Miami Airport, Caila Clause Supernanny Now, Articles E