Two very helpful reports and encouraging letter from AE. Two reports. Polite / nice email from Editor. Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one). Referees didn't read the article properly! Editor obviously read the paper. Unfortunately the paper is rejected but I hope the reports help you improve the paper for another journal. Fantastic journal. We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. The other one, who wanted extra revises, was a bit of stupid. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. One was more helpful than the other. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. Moffitt desk rejected, suggested a field journal.
Cocaine Bear vs Research Workshop: can you tell the difference? Desk reject in one week. We got referee rejection in 2.5 months: 2 referees, one favours RR, other rejects. 1 good, 1 okay and one bad review. Accepted 3 days after resub even though the initial decision was RR with 'major revisions'. Fast turnaround, I'm very happy with the experience. After doing what the, very stupid, referee asked he said "not a big enough contribution". Will never try it again. The referee completely misunderstood a *very* basic primary school model and then went on to criticize and complain about the empirical results. Under two month for two reports. Very quick and professional editing. Not good enough for general interest. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. Boston University Department of Economics. Friendly referee with clear remarks. 1 referree was critical, but offered great suggestions, other 2 were mediocre at best. In? Desk reject in one week, some good comments from editor. Constructive and very detailed referee comments improved the paper. One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. Desk reject in a week. Excellent Experience. Although paper is accepted, i would hardly deal with them in the future. Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. Fast and friendly. No refund. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. linking the paper with the "literature in the field", although we specifically say that our empirical application is novel to the field, so there are no comparable references. Comments weren't helpful, but at least they didn't waste my time. Two helpful reports. **** this journal. Culter said that there was backlog at JHE. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. Paper got desk rejected shortly after. (Fair?) 7 months for two very low quality reports. The paper was under minor revisions. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Awesome experience. 4 months for a desk rejection, frustratingly slow. 3 rounds then rejected by editor, paper was improved by addressing reviewers' comments, eventually accepted at RFS, Cam Harvey gave useless report; obvious outgoing editor is obvious. Awful experience. Best experience in a long time. Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago. What would be a fair solution to racial reconcilation issues in the USA? Editor (Partridge) was very helpful and was de facto a 4th referee. A five pages fantasy report written by a phd-student who did not read the paper. The first round took too long (~10 months). Rejected by an Associate Editor, who actually read the paper, got the main idea clearly, and wrote a 2 full-page report with reasoning why this is not for JET and what journal outlets might be considered.
Economics Job Market Updates / Wiki The editor clearly had a look at least at the introduction and gave encouraging comments. Thorough review. Job Description Linkedin.com. Never again! A Doctorate level degree in Economics or related fields, or expect to receive it in 2023 with strong background in empirical analysis and policy-focused research. Also good editing support. Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. Rejection reason: not general interest enough. The editor (Hongbin Li) rejects because of lack of fir with the journal's mission. That indicates he/she did not finish reading the paper. submission was in 2017. Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. Overall, fair process. Good experience. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. Two years later still waiting for referee reports. Reject because apparently would not fit in their journal. took 5 months. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. Bradshaw AdvisoryLondon/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds - UK. Refs gave some okay minor comments but no big, subtantive critiques. Very quick rejection (24 hours), with nice words from the editor, who obviously read the paper. Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. High quality, detailed referee reports, which substantially improved the paper. Reasonable. Positive comments from the editor. One referee does not follow simple math, immediately assumes the model is wrong and the editor takes his side. Desh rejected in less than a week. Took 6 months for first reply (ref reject); 1 referee critical but fair, the other one very critical but didn't read the paper carefully. After one round of revision, two of the three reviewers accepted the paper and one requested at best minor revision. 2 months, the article is still under internal review DPR had my manuscript for over a year, and never even got it under review. But at least it was quick. A really good experience and really fast. ref report had useful but not overly comprehensive suggestions. No way to check on status. No report yet. Rejected within two weeks. nice experience. Also one referee was clueless and did not read the paper. Very slow process but happy to get accepted. Disappointing referee: a few useful comments, but mostly low-grade and somewhat hostile. No further comment from the editor. 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. No comments on the reason for rejection was given. 2 weeks for desk reject. Analytic number theorists: your opinion on TK's claimed disproof of the RH ? only one report (quite helpful). San Jose, CA. Bad experience on the whole. Good experience with helpful AE and reviewer. City of PhoenixPhoenix - USA, Senior Analyst - Economics Department The overall comments are OK. Actually, not as bad as many people think.Reports by referee and AE were of little help (they raised a few valid points), but this can happen at any other journal too. 2 week desk reject. Editor reject due to relevance. 4 weeks for desk rejection is too much. 9 days. One very helpful referee report, 2 not so helpful. 1 helpful report. Not interested in the topic, acceptable decision. Comical journal. Generic rejection letter from the editor arguing lack of fit. Definetely the referees liked the idea and wanted to improve paper's quality not to argue with its contribution. Lousy reports showing lack of proper reading. Desk reject after 1 month. One useful referee report and one that was not. Accepted after two rounds. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. The reports were good and helpful. Other, did not read the paper carefully yet rejected. Website | CV Great experience. Decent reports. had to withdraw, Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. report and a couple of pretty good ones. Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work.". a 2 paragraph referee report that was not particularly helpful - at least the turnaround time was fast - might as well have been a desk rejection, Very low quality reports. quick turnaround and helpful referee report. Submission is waste of time. Reports were ok, but total process took way too long. Very short to the point referee report. Good reports overall. One reviewer asking for minor revisions, the other clearly reject the paper. Referees rejected the paper or asked for major revisions. happy with outcome. Referee reports are interesting and constructive. is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? Fast review but very difficult comments. (Shouldn't these cases be desk-rejected instead of being rejected after 6 months?). Editors are not reading referee reports. Recommended rejection. Very quick process. Average Quality R-Reports, one missed one has good comments. Fast but shallow. In terms of rejections this is probably as good as it gets. Worse experience ever. The top traffic source to econjobrumors.com is Direct traffic, driving 56.39% of desktop visits last month, and Organic Search is the 2nd with 42.93% of traffic. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. What a joke! Overall good experience. 2 strong reports with valid empirical critiques, 1 less so. 2 referee reports: first one, r&r; second one, reject and resubmit. Ali Kutan is the associate editor, finally accepted the paper. Only one report. The third was R&R, and was more substantive. Rejection after R&R. I agree with most of the comments, but the bar for publication was exceptionally high, considering his relatively low position in the journal ranking. Resubmitted in 2 days, accepted after resubmission in 10 days. 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. Editor does not even both to check referee letter.
Very helpful comments and suggestions from three reviewers and editor (Angeletos). The latter may be fine but it is clear that the referee did not read the paper very carefully. Moderately useful reports. SHAME on you. 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. Both referees really spent time on the paper and gave lots of suggestions.So did the editor. 4.5 months to get the 1st-round comments, 2.5 months for 2nd round. Would definitely submit here again. Round 2 also yielded good referee reports too. Highly recommended. Helpful comments. Took 9 months for acceptance. Still took 3 months. 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. Very fast and professional referee reports. The referees' comments were very much on target and thoughtful. econjobrumors.com Top Marketing Channels. Will submit here again. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. To view archived listings in this job market cycle that are now inactive, check this box View listings from the previous (August 1, 2022 - January 31, 2023) JOE cycle. Constructive comments and Nice experimence! Accepted after 3 R&R. Ona day later they reected it with a one sentence crappy referee report. Both reports positive (one minor/one major revision recommended). Short straight-to-the point referee report with a few nice points, no bullc*ap. The editor did not even get that the comments were wrong. Very slow in responding inquiries. editor(s) provided good comments too. Referees mixed. Almost zero substantive comments on the technical part and not surprising that it was sloppy handling given that it was Pop-Eliches who was the co-editor. The secondary market "Scramble". Comments are mainly about rephrasing implications and minor issues. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. Good reports and no nitpicking on the revision. Editor had different opinion. On this basis the paper is unsuitable for JAPE and the decision is to reject the paper. Third report seemed written by a sage speaking in amharic, most statements were elliptical in nature, and we were left wondering what the referee's point had been. The paper is now much stronger. Professional and useful oversall. Really smooth process. fast desk rejection within 2 days. Fast response from the Editor. He clearly outlined the major flaws and decided to desk-reject it. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. Giles is a great editor. reviewer reports were okay, but the process took so long. Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. Good reports. Funny thing is Editor endorsed reviewer's response. Even though my paper was rejected, they will be useful to improve the paper prior to resubmission to another journal. Very good referee and associate editor report. Finance Job Rumors (489,474) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,762) Micro Job Rumors (15,233) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,523) Industry Rumors (40,348) rejection after 9 months without any useful comments. Slightly more informative than a desk rejection. Slightly disappointing. 1 good Referee and good Editor. 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. The other `meh'. Between two referee reports and two conference discussions, I have some things to consider for future submission. Good referees but long process: 3 rounds /16 months, Very hard to respond but comments significantly improved the paper, Took a long time, but referee reports were very useful and significantly improved the paper. Very, very disappointed. So, I "told mother", and she was like "What is Edge-mer? Economic Theory Bulletin. R&R after 3-4 months. ", Two reports - one thorough and one probably by a grad student, 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. Excellent editor, balanced referees and good timing. Very efficient process. Candidate Job Market Roster: Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. One good report (weak r&r). Helpful and competent editor who made clear what were the important points to address. 7 months for 2 reviews (and one reviewer was already familiar with paper). They said they could not find reviewers. Came back with a reject, but reports were at least somewhat useful. (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?). Some useful comments, most misreads and poor understanding of model. Not all theory papers are welcomed. Super fast review. Harrington and the anonymous reviewer. Andrew Foster took a full month for a desk without a comment. One almost non-existent referee report (basically two lines just saying the paper is not broad enough), one very detailed and overall positive report. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. Nothing happened. A lot to revise, but editor gave only 2 months. Job Market. Contribution not new enough relative to the existing literature. Said the contribution was not enough for a JFE publication. Needless to say, the error is not as such, Bad reports (full of mistakes, pointed out to AE but didn't work), Assigned to an associate editor and got desk reject.
(Serious) are you actually worried about AI alignment? Economics Job Reason cited: weak paper. The editor is responsive. Response time was decent. 2.5 months review. It took 3 weeks to get a desk reject letter. All of them are much speedier and you will actually get helpful comments that will improve your paper. No comments from Katz except go to field journal. After 3 weeks this would have been acceptable. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. 14 days. 1 serious person pushing his method. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. Generic comment of the editor. Very good referee reports - largely positive but requiring some modifications, deleting one section. Woman completes quintessentially English mission to eat 244 scones across U.K. One month for the desk reject. No response. Good experience. Ass editor wrote some useful comments. Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. Very bad experience. In the opinion of the Editorial Board, this paper does not appear to be a good match (the othee papers are good match) for the International Journal of Industrial Organization and it is unlikely that this paper will ultimately be published in the IJIO. Finally very well handled by the editor. Paper rejected based on the editor's phone conversation with the referee. that ?no? 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. rejected after 5 months of 'reviews completed'. Education, Labor, Gender, Development and Public Policies. About 14 weeks from submission to referee reject. Great comments from the referees and editor. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. Desk rejected in 8 days. Awesome experience. Maybe small sample made it untouchable? First two reports were "not general interest enough" and didn't have much to say substantively as a result (1-2 pages). Three rounds. My fault for not discussing that up front. no comments given. Fairly long wait though. Referee seemed have read just the abstract. 7 weeks. Disappointing. OK process, but some reports were useless. overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness. The journal is likely to go up again. Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks.