Gha Housing Pollok, Deaths In Gillingham, Dorset, Vinelink Inmate Release Date, Pirelli Angel Gt 2 Vs Michelin Road 5, Articles E

Horrible experience, late response, useless report. The reason given was something along the lines of well we can't read everything. Weak reports with many assertaions that were simply untrue. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. Two and a half months for a desk reject for lack of fit. Two very thin referee reports. Katz very thoughtful and helpful editor letter. If you don't have that - expect to be desk rejected. Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. Extensive delay for referee reports apparently due to unresponsive referee. Editor read the paper, added some comments of her own. Two short referee reports straight to the point. Worst experience, A very very slow journal. In reality, the paper is poorly motivated and the link between the model and the anecdotal evidence discussed in the introduction is not clear. We will not be making any further offers this year. Despite the rejection, referees raised valid points that we can adress to improve our paper and provided a way forward. Very good experience. Chat (0) Conferences. Good experience. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. Rejected within one day. One helpful (though very demanding) report, the second so-so. superficial comment. Editor should know better. Signaling. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. Editor at least seemed to have given a pretty detailed reading of the paper, but was disappointed with the amount of time it took for a desk rejection. In? I was surprised these two letters resulted in the overall reject. No regrets, Good reports, not extremely helpful, but good. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. the ?author? Market Access Asia region manager in Taipei, Taipei City, 11568 Very good experience. Said the paper was to mathematical/econometrical for the journal. Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that! Russia was born in Kiev. Referee was constructive and provided helpful comments. Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. Helpful comments from reviewer and editor. very thorough with helpful suggestions for revision. Very quick response. Very professional way of handling the process, Very helpful report which has permitted to increase the quality of the paper. great experience. Economics Job Market Rumors. Fast desk reject (~2 weeks) with a couple of brief, helpful comments from the editor. Very positive experience. 1 insanely negative liquid poop all over my paper, most of it provably wrong. Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. Useful ref reports and helpful comments from co-editor. The editor, Richard Rogerson, is very careful and handles the paper in a timely manner. Editor was respectful and not full of himself. Had to send several emails inquiring about the status. After fully addressing the reviewers' comments at each round, the article got rejected in the third round with a totally "ex nihilo" issue risen by one of the reviewers, who never mentioned the issue before. Good handling by the editor (Reis). Econ Job Market Rumors | Now Hiring - CareHealthJobs Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. Very bad experience. The letter from the editor suggests that he/she did not have a firm grasp of the paper. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. Not very useful comments from any of them. Accepted 3 days after resub even though the initial decision was RR with 'major revisions'. Would try again. I feel that mediocre editors are too scared to consider papers unless at least one of the authors is a big shot. Desk rejected, one sentence given. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. very quick response and a useful referee report. Received 2 very nice and 1 okay-ish report. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and about two months in the second round. Referee rejected but with very exhaustive and interesting comments, only one report, but it was fair and can help me to improve the paper, Reports are thoughtful and useful for revisions, it took them 11 months to reject with one referee report of about half a page. Overall a very nice experience. We were asked to collect additional data for our existing experimental treatments to increase our statistical power. The third referee recommended acceptance, but the editor rejected. Editors only pick those with close network. Almost 8 months to acceptance, despite Revised version submitted after 5months. When we inquired after 6 month, we were told to be patient. Seriously, avoid this journal. Reports were sound and improved the paper substantially. The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. No reply yet. Otherwise fine. Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. The AE was gentle and actually read my paper. Job market wiki Economics Job Market Rumors Kinda pissed. The AE report made no sense at all, and had very little substance. She said only 1 (very short but with no objections) of 3 of the referees responded and was not able to find new referees. In-depth argumentation why there is no sufficient progress compared to common wisdom. Same referee takes about half an hour to conclude the math is wrong, yet takes 5 months to submit his report. rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report. Not a good fit. Very quick and very fair. One useless report, and one very useful report. Very inefficient handling process. Editor said all refs must agree for acceptance but only one ref report provided! it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. very comprehensive report. The editor rejected based on flimsy reasons. this journal is very inefficient in processing submissions and re-submissions. 5 months before the editor could take the time to look at the paper. Very low process. Editor overturned referee's decisions with poor justification. All the points are addressable so I would've liked an RR but I'm not part of the club so I can't complain. Lengthy, in-depth reports. quick and clear communication with editor. Boo! 2 very good reports and one poor report. Absolutely pathetic. But the editor read the paper, and recommends Econometrica or JET or TE, Katz needed less time to skim the paper and offer a few good comments than I needed to write a one-sentence cover letter, It is a Finance paper. Quick, very good feedback. Only got form letter. Editor was a bit harsh. The referee must be some leading scholar in the field and I just wanna say thanks to him/her. Comments from Larry very helpful. They took the paper seriously. AE followed majority reports without additional insights. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. Fast desk reject, no substantial comments. Would choose again. Desk rejected in two weeks. Both read, understood and gave a few comments. journal does not sound like a good fit for my research agenda. Three reports, two reports are with doable suggestions, one is low-quality. Also revisions handled quite efficiently! Job Market. Very quick. 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. Reasonable. Editor (Partridge) was very helpful and was de facto a 4th referee. 6 weeks. "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.". Good experience. Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. Good referee report + some comments from AE. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; . Nice words from the editor. Had to withdraw after waiting for nearly a year and a half. 1 referree was critical, but offered great suggestions, other 2 were mediocre at best. Not helpful in any way. FYI: Your editor sucks). The other was much more careful. 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. Ridiculous experience. Heard nothing and received no replies to my emails. Desk rejected after a week with no comments. Not interested in the topic, acceptable decision. Desk reject within 5 days. I am asked to send to another journal because the paper is not a good fit, the editor is very nice, professional and efficient. totally useless editor. Post an advertisement. Form letter from the editor. Recently Announced. The editor handling the paper had no idea about the literature. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. Recommended. Very quick response from Editor (Otrok) after revision. however,? Rejected based on 1 helpful referee report. They just pocketed the submission fee. Cantillon is not a good editor. Very smooth process. Other, did not read the paper carefully yet rejected. Excellent and clear communication with editors. Good comments from the referee. In the end the paper got much improved. Insightful and constructive comments. Desk reject in 1 week. Both editor and referees liked the paper, comments from referees are on the point and constructive. Split decision. Mentioned that they do not consider theoretical papers. Referees were obviously a bad choice for this topic. Desk reject in 4 hours. Rejection after R&R. Fair enough reasons why, but would have appreciated less time. Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff. 2 months with almost no answer, although the journal claims desk rejections are within days. When he rejected the paper for the Economic Systems, he then asked me to submit the same paper to his journal "Emerging Markets Finance and Trade." Good referee report and very efficient editor. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. Education, Labor, Gender, Development and Public Policies. Disappointing outcome, but OK overall experience. Suggested top field journal. Generic desk reject within 2 weeks. High quality editing. A journal to avoid. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. Reminded several times and after waiting 1 year got one referee report. Some conflicting recomms that editor didn't address. Heckman handled paper. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. Reject with two referee reports, one gives constructive comments, one rejects with half a page report, saying the paper is not for a general readership. Went from reject/resubmit to revise resubmit 1, revise resubmit 2, finally accepted. Recommend. Got a form letter in 10 days. fair comment. 6 weeks for a desk reject. I received an answer of the editor after 2 months. Second round was down to one ref and editor, third round was just editor. Over half a year for response from one referee who a) had no problems with the methodology, b) liked the writing, and c) thought it had a novel contribution. Desk rejected in less than one month. Fast and fair enough. Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality. One very good report. Handled by the new co-editor. One line "referee report". Grossbard handled the paper and accepted conditional on rewrite around her useless and poorly cited old work. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. This journal is a bit hell to make it attractive to authors in order to get their money easily. Process lasted one year with nontransparent, contradictory review process. Two reports of middling quality. One associate editor recommended rejection and no other comments/suggestions, but one referee provided very useful comments and s/he seems to be positive about the paper(I post one row which has the wrong info on journal name, should be JPE rather than QJE). Insightful and reasonable referee reports. Fair editor. Overall good experience. This is expected as I am not part of the editor's inner circle. Somewhat useful comments from Department Editor. I dont care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. The other is constructive but not as good. And once that was done, he wanted us to rewrite the article. It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. One referee with very helpful reports. The referees made good points. Hard to believe. No feedback and no useful suggestion in the rejection letter. It has had it uses as a source of gossip but it accumulated the worst of any group of mostly 20 something American men. Desk rejected in a few days. Efficient process, stuck to advertised timings. Got accepted after a week. AE didn't provide comments which is odd. Ref2 was not. Pathetic referee reports. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. Fast and serious journal. Accepted w/o further revision 18 days after resubmit. Two weeks. What is left to say? 4.5 weeks to desk reject. Very helpful reports. Reason for rejection was editor thought paper belonged in `less selective' journal. Very fast. Worst experience of my life. Worst. 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. Horrible experience. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. paper rejected after one round of R&R due to extremely negative attitude of the one referee. desk rejection because it is not a good fit and i am asked to send it to an economic journal --- while i mainly discussed with a very nice sociologist when writing this paper. Editor couldn't find referees, rejected and claimed two reports but only one sent. One very good, detailed, and positive report. Editor's comments were very useful, like a good referee report. Accepted after two rounds. I am happy with the outcome. One was good and one was particularly bad with a lot of non-english expressions. Very useful comments from referees. Slightly disappointing. But we are still hopeful. Clearly there were 2 initial refs: 1 suggested R&R, the other suggested rejection. Decision was made in 45 days. Editor reject due to relevance. Very good experience. Too slow for a short paper, AE spent 4+ months to write very short and useless report. Job Market Candidates 2022 - New York University Very smooth process in general, no complaints. Very good editor recommending a field journal. desk rejected in 3 days. Ona day later they reected it with a one sentence crappy referee report. Overall, the reports were good so no complains. Reports only partly helpful. Editor did not add any comments. Fast editors. It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! 2.5 weeks. not worth the time and effort. Will not submit here again. Highly recommended. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. Comments were sharp and precise and resulted in a much better paper. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Two referee reports; one high quality, one very low quality. editor said the paper had too much economics, The editor was very helpful to summarize what he thought should be done from 4 referee reports. The editor (Mallick) gave us some additional advice and was ok with the result. One report was very positive, but the second one looked like it was written in ten minutes citing four papers of his own. Single-blind review system for a 250 bucks fee. Vastly improved the paper but had to submit elsewhere. Clearly no effort was put into it. Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. I am currently studying the interaction between technological and demographic changes and the labor market. Horrible process. He/she also asked unrelated information such as why the market offer two similar contracts, which is not the scope of the study. Two horribly low quality reports. I am making revisions. The saving grace is that it was fast. Very good referees. PhD Candidates in Economics | NBER Some reasons given. Quick turnaround with two okay reports. 1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals. Not only is it accepted, but it also becomes a much better paper now. 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. Editor is a little slow. Very short and no relevant comments. The second one is more critical and seems to be angry by the fact that I'm not citing his work. Editor said he is sorry for the wait still waiting for the outcome of the second round. One positive report, one mixed and one negative. Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Editor accepted it. the? One month later received rejection with a low quality review. Helpful and honest reviews. Bradshaw AdvisoryLondon/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds - UK. Second round--took less than a month to get 2 detailed second reports from referees--impressive! Very fast process but no comment from the Associate Editor. Serrano handled the manuscript. Thorough review. Was advised to submit to a field journal, Good reports, efficient process, we just didn't meet Katz's "general interest" standard, Surprised didn't get a desk reject. very good experience and fast acceptance after addressing referees' comments. overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. Terrible report. No further comment from the editor. Bruno Biais was AE. Desk rejected in one day. We sent two more emails about the status of the paper and did not get a response from the office. Encouraging words from editor, good experience. Very happy with the process, definetly a favorite for future. Editor was fair, his decision was understandble, but 6 months is clearly too long. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. This is a wiki for tracking searches in various categories for academic (i.e. Articles/sites of interest for students on the Job Market. Editor desk rejected after a couple of days due to lack of fit. Longish time to first response but good reports and a ref who just loved digging into my equations. Good experience. Showed as "awaiting editor assignment" for three months, then a desk reject. One nasty and not helpful review, but two others were very constructive. Reports are not very detailed, but generally comments are fair. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. Second round 4 months before acceptance. Desk reject in 1 week. Editor provided some friendly comments. Our paper went through four rounds and finally accepted after one year of its submission. Fast turnover. Turnaround times are reasonable though. I am very surprised by this unprofessional oversight. Helpful comments from the editor (besides the usual thy shall cite my papers). Katz rejected my paper before I was done submitting it; suspect time travel. Five weeks "with editor" to a boilerplate desk reject, then they asked me to applaud them for a "speedy decision.". The outcome (referee rejection) was acceptable but 5 month waiting is a large waste of time! Many thanks to the editor for most constructive comments. Readers familiar with the operation of the market can proceeddirectlytothe"data"subsectionbelow. basic IV! Do not send your papers to this journal. The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it. Poor / no justification for decision. Answer in 24h. No substantive comments from any of the three referees. 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.