Poor report! Three months. Will submit again. About 14 weeks from submission to referee reject. The editor rejects the paper and I think it is fair, but I do see that the paper can be improved based on these reports. but i think it is an important one that should be considered a bonafide econ journal. It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Hence, terrible. At the end, I got two reports; one helpful, the other garbage. It took 5 months to get a desk reject, with a polite letter from the editor that the paper would be a good fit for a field journal. One crappy referee report, one useful referee report, one grad student referee report. One report only, not very helpful, relatively slow for just one report. I suppose if your work is primarily empirical then you'd better do something that's close to the editor's personal interest, otherwise there will always be the criticism that you need more theory. The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. Instead, she just re-sent me her rejection (from when she was a referee before). Fast editors. Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. Only one referee report in 11 months? Four line referee report written in a hurry before deadline and before ref obviously had to jet off on holiday. Very quick response. Unacceptable waiting time. Fast and fair. Editor agreed with them. Easy Process. Fast reviews with reasonable comments. High quality, detailed ref. Graduate Advisors. Initial demanding R&R. You received a high fee, you explain at least one sentence about your decision making. Top scholars if it comes to RCTs, but no broaded view. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. Round 2 also yielded good referee reports too. Isn't it so obvious?" Getting a reference to AEJ Applied was worth it. One positive and two negative reports. I waited fora long time only to be rejected with a response NOT A GOOD FIT. Clearly there were 2 initial refs: 1 suggested R&R, the other suggested rejection. Very efficient process. Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. 3 Top 5 referees and editor said the paper was a good fit for ReStat, meh Amitabh Chandra rejected in one month with no infomation. Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. Polite, even quite positive reports. Comical journal. Not general interest enough. Cocaine Bear vs Research Workshop: can you tell the difference? The editor handling the paper had no idea about the literature. But editor is very good, One referee report with no constructive comments. Referee report was short and commented on halve of the paper. Very good experience; desk reject with highly valuable and fair comments by the co-editor within 10 days. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. What is left to say? Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Editor does not see a path to acceptance so rejection. One referee was in favour of a strong R&R, the other recommended rejection on the basis of mathematical error, the AD seconded the latter. Good report from reviewers. Sent it to another top 5 instead where it got accepted after one round of revisions - never give up guys! The model is not in AE's taste. I only regret not withdrawing this. I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Well argued rejection with helpful comments. Very good referee reports. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. Chat (0) Conferences. After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. Second round 4 months before acceptance. Paper was long and too dispersed at first, but the managing editor (Baptista) liked it, and the reviewers asked for changes while being receptive. Good experience. Took 3 rounds for editor to realize terrible referee was a crackpot. +6 months for a desk rejection without a single comment. Suggested a top field journal! THREE MONTHS! No reports provided, but editor made brief helpful comments. I haven't received the first response yet. That thing (s)he claimed was wrong was in fact trivially correct, but the referee was completely clueless. Referee seemed have read just the abstract. Polite letter from Bekaert. Told not a fit. [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors is only lightly moderated and preserves posters' anonymity. Nice experience. Two horribly low quality reports. Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half. Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. Desk rejected in 14 days, just long enough to get hopes up, with boilerplate "not general interest.". Checked status online after a month to see the outcome. . Placement Officers: Pete Klenow 650-725-2620 klenow@stanford.edu. Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work.". Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Two referee reports. The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. Referee really helped me to improve this paper with a great report. I love this journal. Some fair comments which are already addressed in the paper but no one paid attention to that Quick and reasonable. Waste of the submission fee. 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. However, he suggested that I submit my paper to a theory journal. He further suggested an exercise that was already illustrated in 2 figures, 1 table and described in the text! Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. It took too long, I do not know if I would submit there again. American Economic Association Under two month for two reports. Good to be fast, but quality of feedback should be taken care of more at this journal. Incredibly unprofessional. fair and efficient process. Don't know why Elsevier is silence about this behavior from Batten. Editor provided a letter with comments. But 10 months is too long. Very low quality report. Very quick handeling, decent reports. Editor and co-editor are extremely nice and supportive. Some good comments though. The first revision took around 5 months. Fast and fair enough. Comments were not really helpful. The editor and AEs should be immediately replaced. Editor said he is sorry for the wait still waiting for the outcome of the second round. However, they want to reject whatever you want. Job Market - Economics Job Market. And I've recently reviewed a closely related paper for the EER that got a revise-and-resubmit, so you'd think the topic must be interesting enough. 23 hours and 30 minutes after submission, desk reject from Shleifer. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. No complaints. Only got form letter. Very very good comments, referee was clearly very knowledgeable. Editor didn't read the paper. We resubmitted to AEPP and the paper received minor revisions after the second R&R. Delays related to second reviewer. Whole process super quick. No feedback at all. General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,806) Micro Job Rumors (15,245) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,027) China Job Market (103,534) This is the letter I sent to the editor of JME: Laughable report (where do they find these clueless idiots?). Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. No response to requests. Very smooth process in general, no complaints. Would submit again. Helpful reports in general. The referee did not read the first sentence of the paper and was not familiar with the literature. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. Formulaic letter. Deemed too narrow for the journal. https://wpcarey.asu.edu/economics-degrees/research-seminars-workshops, Hoy (World Bank), Cox (Yale), Toppeta (UCL), Prettnar (UCSB), Kang (Stony Brook), Abdulhadi (OSU), Sun (Penn State), Seyler (Laval), Neal (UNSW), Lin (UCLA), Huang (NYU), Zhang (Princeton), Beltekian (Nottingham), Jin (BU & CMU), Kumagai (Brown), Zhou (Chicago Postdoc), Chen (LISER & Tilburg), https://rse.anu.edu.au/seminars-events/all-seminars, Senior Economist or FSS Senior Analyst (2022-2023 PhD Job Market), Behavioral Economics, Experimental Economics, Assistant Professor, Business and Public Policy, Kapon (Princeton postdoc), Moscona (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Nord (EUI), Vergara (Berkeley), Wang (EUI), Ashtari (UCL), Sung (Columbia), Conwell (Yale), Carry (ENSAE), Song (USC), Thereze (Princeton), Banchio (Stanford GSB), Vitali (UCL), Wong (Columbia), Kang (Stanford GSB), Ba (UPenn), Durandard (Northwestern), Department of Social and Political Sciences, Zenobia T. Chan (Princeton), Xiaoyue Shan (Zurich), Germain Gauthier (CREST), Massimo Pulejo (NYU), Joan Martnez (Berkeley), Enrico Miglino (UCL), Assistant Professor of the Practice in Economics, Borghesan (Penn) Wagner (Harvard) Acquatella (Harvard) Vitali (UCL) Zahra Diop (Oxford) Bernhardt (Harvard), Boston University, Pardee School of Global Studies, Assistant Professor of International Economic Policy, Yeji Sung (Columbia), Joao Guerreiro(Northwestern), Seck (Harvard), Borusyak (UCL), Rexer (Wharton), College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University, Castro de Britto (Bocconi), Alfonsi (Berkeley), Miano (Harvard), Hazard (PSE), Uccioli (MIT), Brandimarti (Geneva), Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Mattia (Chicago), Applied Microeconomics, Business Economics, Hampole (Kellogg), Kwon (HBS), Morazzoni (UPF), Puri (MIT), Vasudevan (Yale), Wang (Stanford GSB), Pernoud (Stanford), Vats (Booth), Otero (UC Berkeley, hes accepted the Columbia GSB offer), Commonwealth University of Pennsylvania - Bloomsburg, Cong @Cornell is a free rider of people's research, Szerman(Princeton), Kohlhepp(UCLA), Contractor(Yale), Pauline Carry (CREST), Nimier-David (CREST), Lukas Nord (EUI), Philipp Wangner (TSE), Anna Vitali (UCL), Lucas Conwell (Yale University), Florencia Airaudo (Carlos III), Fernando Cirelli (NYU), Nils Lehr (Boston Univesrity), Sara Casella (University of Pennsylvania), Yehi Sung (Columbia University), Shihan Shen (UCLA), Federico Puglisi (Northwestern University), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Juan Manuel Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton University), Martin Souchier (Stanford), Benny Kleinman (Princeton Univerisity), Miano (Harvard), Ramazzotti (LSE), Miglino (UCL), Petracchi (Brown), Augias (Sciences Po), Uccioli (MIT), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Vattuone (Warwick), Yang (ANU), Mantovani (UPF), Ashtari Tafti (UCL), Colombo (Mannheim), Vocke (Innsbruck) (see here: shorturl.at/azHN1), Thereze (Princeton) Miller (Wharton) Matcham (LSE) van der Beck (EPFL) Casella (UPenn) Wang (Stanford GSB) Taburet (LSE) Pernoud (Stanford) Mittal (Columbia) Hampole (Kellogg). Quick rejection. Three months for an "out of scope" decision. Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. Rubbish report ! 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. Not enough of a contribution for JPE, suggested AEJs. Decision was made in 45 days. Fast R&R with reasonable reports and encouraging editor letter. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, O. Good overall experience. Desk rejected in 6 days with no explanation. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. All referee reports were gave entirely stylistic comments with no real grounds for rejection. He clearly outlined the major flaws and decided to desk-reject it. Positive feedback from the editor. While the paper was rejected the referee reports were in-depth and very helpful. Bad experience. Generic letter from editor. Very good referees. Fast turnaround and good comments. The third was R&R, and was more substantive. Long time to edit and format after acceptance. The paper was accepted after the first round revision. Editor recommended field journal submission. Update to previous pending post. Good experience, even my paper was rejected. It is a pity it was rejected, but I appreciate the quick response. Great management by editorial board although disappointing result. Editor was Barro. Desk rejection in 3 days. Long time to first response, given 3 months for a lengthy (single) report, but resubmitted and was accepted in like 3 hours. Overall good experience. 7 days from first submission to minor revision. Horrible treatment. good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. Results not important enough to a broad audience. High Quality Editing. Referee recommends conditional accept but AE strongly against publication. The report I did get back (in the form of an email from the editor) was not very informative (referee claimed "expressing time series as deviations from trend does not produce a stationary time series". High quality reports and useful comments from the editor. Overall I think this journal should get a more diverse editorial board. Polite / nice email from Editor. recommended Journal of Development Economics. Ok referee reports. Three high quality referee reports. Quick desk reject, apparently considers itself a GI journal now (?). Editor Bruce Hollingsworth suggested an alternative journal. 1 very good referee reports, 1 mediocre, editor was nice. Total waste of time. A second round of minor revision was requested. Quick desk rejection. Assistant Professor, Macroeconomics. An uprising journal so I recommend people to publish here. One decent and one sloppy report, 1 good report, 1 bad one, decent turnaround time. One fairly high-quality report, one not-so good. The other referee has no idea what I am doing. One is very productive while the other is suck. Pleasant experience. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. Though nothing extremely deep, comments were of acceptable quality. Over 8 weeks for a desk reject due to poor fit for journal. Poor referee reports. On the whole very good experience. His comments indicate he did not have an open arm to read introduction carefully to desk reject. Total waste of time. Bad experience, waste of money and time. The editor wrote the 2nd report. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. 2 students with mostly useless comments. Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines). my paper was rejected but great comments on how this paper can be improved are made. The decision is quite fair and briefly justified. Paper very close to editor's (Rogerson) field of interest. Happy with process. Heard nothing and received no replies to my emails. The paper is now much stronger. Excellent and detailed report, fair decision. Working on my R&R now. Otherwise fine. One very good and one very weak report. Editor Chandra took four months to desk reject a straightforward empirical paper. Very good experience, competent referees and quick feedback after the resubmission. Desk reject within 1 day. SHAME on you. I'll definetly will submit again. 2 decent reports. Will submit again (other work, of course) on the basis of professionalism and treatment. One positive one negative. Very helpful feedback that made this a better paper. Only one referee report. Decent reports, no complain. After two weeks we got a desk rejection with a very impersonal letter which made us think that the editor did not even read the intro. Desk rejected thoughtelessly with curious comment paper read more like a book, 8 month desk reject with no reports--JPE is dead to me, desk rejected in a bit over a week, not clear who handled the paper. Overall, very good experience. Professional reports. It would be a positive experience if submission were free. Invited to submit for a special conference issue and then the editor desk rejected. Really good advice from journal editor and 2 good reports. The reason was that the, Andrew Samwick rejected within 2 days, Topic is too speacialized for EL. 2 reports minimal work, 1 report some work. One referee was thoughtful and recommended acceptance; Second referee asked for more results; AE agreed with the 1st referee. Editor (Reis) worked hard on paper to make it better. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. He had nothing but praise for it and offered good suggestions. Suggested field journal. I was pleased with the experience because I've never made this far with them. No refund. Got accepted after 2nd round. Job Market. Very fair. Very good handling of the process. Candidate Job Market Roster: Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. Great experience. Not a good experience. First round took 2 months. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. Good experience overall. Lousy comments from the Editor in chief. Job Market. Job Market. main message was that paper is a poor fit. Very long process. At the time the editor had still the paper sitting on his desk. JFM is bad! Waiting for R&R results. Considering withdrawing. Editor wrote a few short comments. Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. Expected a lot better from this journal. Desk rejected within two weeks. reports. Overall, the reports were good so no complains. Revise and Resubmit. Editor claimed an expert in the field reviewed the paper while the referee admitted in his first sentence of the report that he is not. Reports were not very helpful. Three short reports. "Not a good fit". Editor followed the second report. editor is dumber than a second coat of paint. One very helpful referee report, 2 not so helpful. Reject due to the non-response by the referee. "Thank you for your paper. Horrible! 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. Basically useless, a waste of time. While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. Bradshaw AdvisoryLondon/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds - UK. At least they gave decent feedback. 100 USD for such VALUABLE suggestion. both reviewers rejected for different reasons, reports were overall helpful but some comments showed lack of understanding. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. No refund. Very fast. A lot to revise, but editor gave only 2 months. 1 R&R round. The referees loved it, very positive comments. Referee one was inexpert in the field, and suggested we cite mostly irrelevant papers published by the handling editor. Very poor experience. 3 reports. One very good referee report out of three. One useless report, and one very useful report. Somewhat useful comments from Department Editor. Took 7 months to get one referee report. Very nice words from the editor but useless referee reports. desk reject by kahn in 48 hours. Pretty helpful reports. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. 14 days. I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. Some people are simply too narrow in the scope of their research to be editors of a journal which claims to be of "general interest". the? Submitted a taxation paper that was outside of their comfort zone. Probably the editor took a look at my zip code, and told the AE that "this should be quick". Three mediocre reports. Aarhus University, Department of Economics and Business Economics, School of Business and Social Sciences: Eric Hillebrand http://econ.au.dk/job-market-candidates . Obviously, being turned down after a two-year long process and a very extensive revision is bad for a young author. This page collects information about the academic mathematics job market: positions, short lists, offers, acceptances, etc. Useless comments. Finance Job Rumors (489,006) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,503) Micro Job Rumors (15,223) Macro Job Rumors (9,792) European Job Market (100,940) China Job Market (103,450) Industry Rumors (40,309) Lots of minor standardized formating requests, then a gap of 10 weeks to get accepted. Comments very helpful, editors took time to read the paper and were engaged throughout the process. Editor rejected. Fast response. Overall good experience. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. 1 helpful report. Such a waste of my valuable time. Almost 8 months to acceptance, despite Revised version submitted after 5months. Got reject after a year and half of work! Good referee reports. Some comments from the editor, some are useful. Very useful reports, also doing some editing. Still took 3 months. That was also a very fast and good experience, though not the outcome I had hoped. one positive, one flat reject review, the editor decided to reject. Very fast, and really high-quality referee reports, plus the AE's feedback. the? Available November 2022 for positions in Summer/Fall 2023. Fast and fair. While the goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. The editor had good words about the paper but one ref didn't like it, so he rejected it. This guy really needs to not be a referee if he can not do a thorough job in actually reading paper. rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report. Good handling by the editor (Reis). Very efficient, good reports. One was a paragraph long and basically did a lit review. Good experience, worth the 100$ :). With my 4-6 data observations (different journals), EL is definitely the most efficient journal. I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. Not general interest enough. Split recommendations, editor decided to reject which is fair enough. Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. 1 good report and 1 not so good. He saw we addressed the points, and accepted the paper himself without going back to reviewers although comments were substantial. Good report. Shameless people. Referees asked for useless extensions and took more than six months in each round. 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. Afwul experience. Helpful comments from referees and editor. Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. Three rounds. Horrible experience! Nonder they are going down in ranking in Dev Econ steadily. Reviewers comments were quite helpful. The best rejection letter ever received. If the editor tought the paper did not fit the scope of the journal, he should have rejected it at the very beginning of the process, without engaging in a peer-review. Dest rejected in three days. Contribution too small. Journal response was quick. Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California (USA) That mean 5 people read my paper? Just a one-paragraph report saying that the results are not "novel". The rejection came with a useless referee report. Comments were meant for another paper. Suggested field journal. Drop the "Economics." Just "Job Market Rumors." Rejection reason: not general interest enough. Fast review but very difficult comments. Referees rejected. Initial response was quick. From the comments it could have been an R&R, at least the referee and editor comments were helpful and will help to improve the paper, Though it is rejcted, I want to express my thankness to the refreee, who provdes a exremly high quality report. 19 Jul 2023. Our results didn't change. Excellent ref report. My paper was a comment, so I consider this pretty slow. Quick -- 3 days after editor was assigned. I don't disagree with decision, but too long for a relatively straight-forward empirical paper. Did get a field journal suggestion and a refund of submission fees. Editor was kind and offered some useful remarks. topics should probably be closely related to banking. The referees should be (far) better than the illiterate idiot they gave me! Very, very disappointed. Very fast experience at last. good reports, great editor who replies promptly to queries. Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. Rather pleasant experience. Submitted to conference edition. After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected. Fair report but not anything that couldn't be corrected in R&R. Oh well. 1 insanely negative liquid poop all over my paper, most of it provably wrong. Mark Watson was the editor. We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. Process lasted one year with nontransparent, contradictory review process. Very professional handling of the editor with very detailed comments and helpful reports. Desk rejected by Sarte in 3 days without comments. Ref. 2.5 are very positive. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. One decent report. The editor (Mallick) gave us some additional advice and was ok with the result. Very fast process. Largely fair points. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. The editors are public health monkeys. Desk rejected within 10 days. 2 quality ref reports + brief comments by editor. On this basis the paper is unsuitable for JAPE and the decision is to reject the paper. I believe that if that is the reason it could have been desk rejected. 5 months for a desk reject! Avoid this shitty journal. Still my favorite rejection of all time - used Shakespeare in a footnote, and first referee (whose English was subpar) said that the footnote was "very poorly written." Would try again. 9 month for two reports. Would submit again. Maybe paper is not good enough, but the "report" was not convincing either. One ref decided to the opportunity to pimp their own working paper. Editor suggested that paper was better suited for JDE (LOL). Great experience! Katia Meggiorin. Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. Only 1 report, but a fair assessment of the paper. Efficient. The editor rejected the manuscript without any useful comments. Fast editors. More than 16 weeks!! Editor realized the mistake and suggested to resubmit after implementing additional revisions (another 2+ months of work). One of the referees helped me structure the paper nicely. Good experience, Referees on the fence, rejection because editor does not like topic. 2 good, one grumpy referee report. Great outcome. Just that paper did not meet the bar. Special fast-track call. After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. One great referee, one ok. Super fast process. Fair decision and process, 2 mildly positive reviews, editor shot it down. Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit. Finally withdraw. Quality of editing going down. 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. 5 weeks to first response. 1 useless report, 1 very helpful and 1 okay. And the whole process took us 8 months. fast desk rejection within 2 days. Note that the shorter the time span considered, the more likely the ranking is going to be spurious. Got a rejection within a couple of days without any constructive comment. Submission fee refund. The AE was gentle and actually read my paper. Controversial journal. A stronger editor could have handled the submission more efficiently also pointing out the weakness of the 2nd report. 1 lukewarm, lazy report with many mistakes. I do not think that the referee understood my paper. Editor acknowledge that it was a bad draw. Reports are not very detailed, but generally comments are fair. Not because of the decision but due the letter content. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. Even disappointing outcome, three constructive reports, one of them extremely helpful. Department of Geography. 1 referee report after 1 year, referee did not like the idea, editor Pok-sang Lam. Overall decent and professional expert reports. One of the referee reports was sloppy, showing inaccurate reading. Disgraceful! Journal of Economic and Social Measurement. quick decision by the editor. Rejected within a few hours - unclear that associate editor had read the paper carefully, rather than just the limited 100 word abstract, since comments repeated points made within the paper. The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. Said the paper was to mathematical/econometrical for the journal. Journal. One felt like it was literally written 30 minutes before the deadline.