one of the reports was literaly 3 sentences. William A. Barnett is a very professional editor and reviews were helpful. Desk Reject, No Comment, Horrible Experience- THEY DO NOT REFUND the submission fee. No further comment from the editor. Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. A short piece from an expert in the field. Overall fair process. It too me the editor 13 months to desk reject. At first the handling editor informed us that the paper is sent for peer review. One good report, the other one poor. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. Fast and very competent review. One referee had clearly read the paper. Good feedback from AE too. Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. Great experience. Less than two weeks from submission to editorial decision. At the time the editor had still the paper sitting on his desk. We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. Pretty smooth process, with Eric Leeper being very kind and helpful. 2 weeks for 2 high quality ref reports. Very good experience. One referee openly mentioned s/he doesnt like the method used in the paper. Quick (10 days), but useless. Special issue editor started to referee himself. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Fast Review process. Fair process. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. the? one referee pointed to their own working paper which is still not published (jan 2017), Positive: 1 high quality referee report and some comments by the co-editor; Negative: 2 other referee reports of medium to very low quality. Editor was very reasonable. No specfic comment on the paper. 19 Jun 2023. fair and efficient process. Helpful comments from the editor (besides the usual thy shall cite my papers). Not submitting again to this journal. Sent my paper to another different journal. Quite fast I'd say, but comments were simple. Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. Two weeks and they not assigned a manuscript ID number. (This would have been easy to see from reading the intro before sending this to reviewers why not desk-reject instead of wasting author and reviewer time?). Ref needed 6 months to produce a paragraph of a response. Referee did not even sent a report after year and a half. Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. Did get a field journal suggestion and a refund of submission fees. Suggested a top field journal! Considered waste of time here. Constructive referee report. 6 weeks to get desk rejected for not being of general interest. Terrible single line report from editor (after 16 months of waiting). Although the paper got accepted, the quality of the comments and the editor's comments were beyond laughable and actually really make me regret having it sent there but it is too late. A bit slow, but good comments by the referee. Two reviewers recommended rejection. Avoid this journal by any means. Desk rejected after one day due to poor fit. Referee reports were very good, constructive and tough. Editor Ian Walker gave us a fantastic referee report. Taiwan was born in Wuhan. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. It lists positions at PhD-granting departments (including stat and applied math), and at departments that are research-oriented . Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. Waste of time. 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. No evidence anyone read the paper, even though they probably have the highest submission fee among econ journals. Good points, though, and overall a good experience. Extremely unprofessional. Super fast process than I had expected. Got response approx. I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. 14 months from submission to publication online. Incredibly unprofessional. Referee wrote a short report with easily implementable suggestions, suggesting revision. One ref in favor, one against. The main sugguestion is to come up with a theoretical model and erase half of the work done. Relatively Quick Process. Good handling by the editor. Thanks Amy! In only four sentences, ref manages to contradict himself. The referee report is very good and even show a positive view to my paper. be viewed as too specific. He sends you an email that he carefully read the paper and then you follow up a day after asking him about a clarification and his response was that he did not remember. 1 referree was critical, but offered great suggestions, other 2 were mediocre at best. and then took another seven months. Rejected within one day. Very, very disappointed! Avoid this journal. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, excellent experience. Comments are mainly about rephrasing implications and minor issues. They have officially adopted the policy of not giving reasons for desk rejections given the 75% desk rejection rate. One report was low quality the other was so-so. Editor (Collins) might read the paper, but did not say much. In the end the paper got much improved. Weak editor. Portuguese Economic Journal* Great process. Reason - paper was too specialized. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. The journal is likely to go up again. Editor was changed, asked for electronic resubmission and paper got rejected. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again, Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees. Fast process and 2 helpful ref. 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. Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. At least they are faster than their reputation. The paper would be a good fit. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. The other report was useless. Very, very disappointed. One useful report out of three. The editor read the paper carefully to make the decision. One somewhat elaborated report. Editor's letter mentioned a 2-1 split in favor of rejection, so she rejected. Very happy with experience so far. All comments seem easy to answer. Finance Job Rumors (488,736) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,359) Micro Job Rumors (15,223) Macro Job Rumors (9,790) European Job Market (100,917) China Job Market (103,439) Industry Rumors (40,300) Not very impressed. Very efficient process. Most inefficient handling ever. Good. Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one). Overall a very nice experience. Co-editor rejects because contribution is not big enough to warrant publication. Came back to my office at 12:05. Have contacted the editorail asistant three times (startung six weeks after submission) who said she would remind the editor. Two referee reports: 1 seemed to miss basics of the paper and didn't provide useful insight/comments and the other was exhaustive, insightful, and useful moving forward. Despite the rejection, a very fair process with constructive comments and a fast response. Mostly good comments, though not given much detail about main criticism. Terrible editor. Contribution too small. Seems to be unfit the reviewing editor's preference but the handling editor was kind though. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. Very fast experience at last. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. almost useless and the editor is too slow. The paper was not a good fit as it did not he approach does not engage the distinctive public choice literature. The manuscript improved substantially as well, thanks to the reports. Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. Insane process and utterly inexperienced referee. One very good referee report, based on which the paper is improved significantly. The other one was less so. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. A lot of small nit-picky criticism and some factually wrong statements about paper. Extensive, constructive and mildly positive ref report. Ex: CDF was derived to construct the likelihood of a discrete choice model, a reviewer writes the author does not use the derived CDF. Bad report, condescending. A bit of wait but ok for econ standards. Think about submitting again. PhD & Postdoctoral Research Fellow Job Market Candidates 2022 - 2023 Home Page CV ANDREW HANNON PHD Research Fields: Macroeconomics, Household Finance, Sovereign Debt, Financial Stability and the Housing Market Job Market Paper: Falling Behind: Delinquency and Foreclosure in a Housing Crisis References: Dr. . Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda. It was clear that the referees read the paper and provided appropriate comments. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. Fair process. Most dishonest rejection. I will never submit there again, Excellent and constructive reports. Note that some areas need filling in with actual pages. Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. Submitted 4 February, rejected 29 December with 1 ok referee report that had been submitted in May. They changed their system recently and the new system indicated that my paper had not been submitted so I waited 5 months for nothing. Katz rejected in two hours with comments that seemed to be written for some other paper. Accepted w/o further revision 18 days after resubmit. Deemed too narrow for the journal. The editor clearly had a look at least at the introduction and gave encouraging comments. The report had a few good notes but none that really seemed to disqualify the paper from getting an R&R. Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. 1 was very low quality -- couple of bullet points that made clear reviewer had not read paper. overall v good experience. Mess with the submission, as they were changing editors. I am not sure the referee knows the topic area well enough. 2 weeks to generic desk reject with no comments whatsoever. Desk reject after 2 months. We have no new methodology because, when tried, the data suggest traditional fits better: not interesting enough for RSUE. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. Faster than I expected given horror stories i have heard here and elsewhere, and with good comments from refs and editor. Fast, but absolutely useless reports. I felt as if 65$ has evaporated from my pocket. Got a rejection within a couple of days without any constructive comment. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. Very poor quality referee report after waiting for more than 7 months. No letter from an Associate Editor, so no idea about who rejected the paper. Desk rejected the same day! it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit. Frustrating. Comments very helpful, editors took time to read the paper and were engaged throughout the process. Worthless garbage report, no redeeming value. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. Generic letter. Referee reject after more than a year. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. No reason given (just lack of fit..), no suggestions to improve, no money back. Sent a specialized financial accounting paper. It seems from this website that this in not uncommon for this journal. Two rounds of R&R, final acceptance after second round within 5 days. accepted immediately after minor revision. 2 informed reports + very detailed comments and guidance by the AE. extremely long wait, and a really poor referee report. 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) The editor's letter was well-written. Editor recommended field journal submission. 2 weeks to receive desk rejection. Quick rejection (Canova, 5 days), professional, very acceptable decision. Quick turnaround upon revision. desk reject by kahn in 48 hours. Good communication and seemed very efficient. Desk rejected the next day. I really appreciated the clarity the editor provided in helping to navigate the referee reports. Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). Two reports that are quite detailed. 11 months for a rejection. Very long time for first response. Long wait. 2.5 weeks. Desk rejected, one sentence given. No comment from the editor, 1 referee report by an idiot that just filled three pages with garbage to look like a better referee; other report was better but still not nearly as smart as QJE referees. Letters from the Editor was nice. Wonderful experience overall. Good comments from 2 referees, the other did not appear to have read the paper well. Overall a good experience! Recommended. Very long time to receive the first decision (major revision). Referee reports were on the shrt side, but competent and polite, unfrtunately I doubt that the comments received will help improving the paper. Somewhat useful comments from Department Editor. Very short to the point referee report. Long process but well worth it! One very positive and helpful report, one negative report. The referee checked my citations and offered helpful comments. Desk rejected the next day. Heard nothing and received no replies to my emails. But I'm a nobody. Great process, fast and fair. Painfully crushing rejection, as all referees agreed it was a good paper, but had some valid concerns about length and possible general interest contribution. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. WD has become a true shitshow. Overall very good experience. 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). A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!! Good for knowing what people didn't like, but not clear how to improve. Some useful comments from his friend. Editor argued I had observational data and no identification, hence instant rejection. Outrageously poor process. Very slow. Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING. Would choose again. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response. Flores, Jairo. Both reviewers were positive suggested R&R. What takes so long? Katz voted to reject. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. Same referee as for a previous submission to a high-ranked journal. recommend to send to some other theory journals but those theory journals have said I should send to this journal. Very happy with the editorial process. It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. Result not general enough for ECMA. Contact Us 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 617-868-3900 info@nber.org webaccessibility@nber.org. No referee reports, just got notified I was accepted. Could've desk-rejected instead of two useless referee reports. report and a couple of pretty good ones. Keep asking to submit to other conferences/journals RCFS/RAPS. Editor was Imran Rasul, extremely professional and competent. Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. fast response but low quality referee reports, fast and reliable journal. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. Fast editors. of? The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. At least it was fast I guess. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. Very good handling of the process. Paper very close to editor's (Rogerson) field of interest. However, he referred to incorrect and minor points made by the referees. Horrible. Reviews not very helpful as it seems like psychologists reviewed it. Very fast process. Great experience. "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". Acceted as is; not a single change requested. 6 weeks. Reports were of moderate quality. And some more nice words. Although our paper is rejected by the reviewer, I would be very happy to read the referee report. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement. After about 1 year of wait, the editor decided to reject the submission on the basis of 1 report (2 referees did not respond) that contained only 2-3 lines that already work was done on the topic (although appreciating the empirical analysis). Editor realized the mistake and suggested to resubmit after implementing additional revisions (another 2+ months of work). Two of three referees did not read the paper. Helpful comments from referees and editor. The contribution of the paper is not suficient for the EJ. Avoid Scott Adams. Bad experience waiting for and ultimately receiving two relatively useless reviews for a comment/note (paper < 10 pages including title/abstract page, references, and tables). It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. Editor Chandra rejected with one ref report. AE rejected without commenting on referee report, At least a quick report with one good comment that can help to improve the paper, but with the other points highlighted by the referee were discussed in the paper. Our paper is rejected after receiving one referee report. Overall, great experecience! They just pocketed the submission fee. Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. Referee 1 happy with resubmission (no further comments), referee 2 suggested rejection or major rewriting. Emailed journal to withdraw submission after 14 months. One referee waited for 182 days to submit his/her report as there was a time stamp on the report. Reports were ok but most of the time was waiting for editor to pull his finger out. One referee for sure did not read the paper as pointed things which were actually in the paper. The discussant in the shitty conf gives better comments. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience! The editor brought in a tie breaker 3rd, who wrote a very terse reject. Good Experience. Tough but fair referee reports. Way too slow though. Amazing turnaround. Dest rejected in 2 days. Second report little use. Really good advice from journal editor and 2 good reports. Assistant Professor, Macroeconomics. Hellwig rejected, suggested 2nd tier journal such as ET. Worst experience so far. While the ref rejection runied my day, I must conclude that the process was very efficient and the editors/refs earned every penny of the submission fee based on the feedback I received. Worst experience ever. Awful experience. 4.5 months to get the 1st-round comments, 2.5 months for 2nd round. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Isn't it so obvious?" Referee comments generally useful and positive, but guest editor made desicsion to reject given preferences - fair enough really. Inquired about my submission after 7 months, got answer that revision time "totally depends on the reviewers". The editor (Midrigan) collects three reports within 75 days. is ?so ?poor? Did not receive a rejection letter from the co-editor. Easy Process. Isnt it written that this journal focuses on mathematical reasoning instead of sticking to conventional setup? Good reports, but what a punch in the gut. Nice communication with the Editor, but the referre report was terse with only one and brief idea. No surprising, but referee report was sloppy and incorrect. It was quick. Editor do not reply to any query. Rejected after 2 weeks. Very different than my past experience. I assume he did not like the topic at the end. The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. But the editor (Kunst) decided to "follow the referee's advice to reject your submission", even though there was no indication of such a recommendation in the RR. Very fast process. Francis Breedon is an efficient editor. One referee said "take it", two said "we dislike coauthor, he published something similar in psych journal, do not take".
How To Delete A House Slot In Bloxburg,
Mutual Of Omaha Medicare Supplement Provider Portal,
Articles E