editor(s) provided good comments too. It's time for the journal to kick out some unprofessional referees. Very quick and professional editing. 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. Editor rejected the paper, but it was not unexpected. Very very good comments, referee was clearly very knowledgeable. Good reports. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. Editor cites two but only sends one. The other one, who wanted extra revises, was a bit of stupid. Very good experience. Advisor: Prof. Caterina Calsamiglia. 1 really excellent, positive report. Happy with the whole process. Solid referee report and very quick response. Empty report. Good editor. Water Research Manager (Project Manager) Referee did not bother to read the paper. paper took over a month to get desk rejected because of problems with elsevier system. Submitted August 14, 2015. 2 rounds (1 major R and 1 minor R), one report each time, very fast acceptance after minor R round (less than a month), Fast and to the point reports with reasonable requests for r&r. Bad experience. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. The editor, not having confidence in the reports, decided to reject, I believe. A good journal, Quick and fair outcome with a nice response from the editor, Good experience with every step completed in a timely fashion. Less than two weeks from submission to editorial decision. Due to a "typographical error" in sending me an email, I had to wait an extra month (and after I emailed asking for a status update) to learn of the rejection - wasting time I could have spent submitting it to another journal. Submission fee not refunded. But very quick process after contacting editorial office. Some interesting comments, but not much. Both referees were concerned about identification, but did not suggest how to fix. The AE also provided his own review. Economics Job Market Rumors . 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. Desk rejected in 2 days. Editor was Barro. The editor did point out a couple of interesting things. Terrible referees. Shockingly low quality reports that were nearly identical. Candidate in Management. One excellent referee report, and one decent one. No comments from Katz except go to field journal. Standard experience with the JHR. The initial resposen took too long (almost 4 moth to be sent our to referees). Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy, Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript. Mark Ramseyer. Very fast. 2 months for a generic desk rejection with no comment whatsoever.. but of course I am not in the club. Oh well, on to the next journal. Really bad experience (Midrigan was the editor). Proved to be quite true. Sadly, from the comments of the editor it was clear that she did not read the paper careully either, otherwise she would not have written the coments we got on the rejection letter. Two very useful referee reports. One absolutely incompetent referee. Referred to field, seems editor at least scanned and maybe even read the whole thing. 2 good reports, clearly improved the paper. Much better than regular EL. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so." Will not consider it again. reports. One referee waited for 182 days to submit his/her report as there was a time stamp on the report. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. Extremely efficient. Excellent editor, balanced referees and good timing. The other was low quality and made factually incorrect statements that seemed to influence the associate editor's assessment of the manuscript. AE didn't provide comments which is odd. Very quick handeling, decent reports. Useful comments from knowledgeable reviewers. Editors reject the paper. Extremely bad experience with this journal. Quick handling, competent (positive) reports. High quality reports and useful comments from the editor. One very good and helpful report. A black bitch barks at East Europe. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. The most thoughtful and detailed review I've ever had. Good overall experience. He suggested a more suitable outlet. Fair decision. Two thoughtful refs, one clueless. Very professional way of handling the process, Very helpful report which has permitted to increase the quality of the paper. Otrok rejected within 7 days; considerable comments on the paper, though the three major points are either just wrong or addressed (one of them prominently) in the introduction of the paper. Eight months is a long wait though. Decent referee reports. The second editor rejected it. Quite clear they didn't bother to read manuscript. Harrington and the anonymous reviewer. The reviewers "firmly" recommend rejection but I see that most problems can be fixed. the referee reports are of good quality, but I think 11 month for a first response is too long, Very quick response. Our paper went through four rounds and finally accepted after one year of its submission. I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. 6 weeks. The decision is quite fair and briefly justified. This is why our profession sucks. Very long time to receive the first decision (major revision). Editor gives no justification whatsoever. Very good journal, with reactive editorial assistant (Sabah Cavalo), and very good and constructive comments. Very weak reports. Will submit again. The editor did not even get that the comments were wrong. Only got form letter. Got response approx. I withdrew the manuscript and will never submit here again. Poor report but good comments from the associate editor, Associate Editor and the reviewer provided excellent feedback, Very fast and easy, but useless reports and editors (which is what I wanted for a quick worthless pub). The report must have been farmed out to some grad student who couldn't write. What would be a fair solution to racial reconcilation issues in the USA? Rejected because topic did not fit the journal. Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. Friendly referee with clear remarks. Going through 15 months of the reviewing process. Great experience overall, Editor decided not to wait for the late referee not to slow down the process. 5 weeks for a desk reject. Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. This is a wiki for tracking searches in various categories for academic (i.e. The paper is in between energy and finance, and the referees were more knowledgable of Energy than Finance, where our approach is more standard I'd say. Fairly standard rejection letter, not general enough. After 7 months of waiting. Vastly improved the paper but had to submit elsewhere. Best experience in my long career (20+ years, 10+ top publications). Overall great experience. Other than that, the process was good. Made comments about Maximum Likelihood etc when I was using Method of Simuated Moments. Worst experience so far. Desk reject after 2 months. Same referee as for a previous submission to a high-ranked journal. Will avoid in the future. Poorly managed editorial process. referee is very fast. Good experience, Referees on the fence, rejection because editor does not like topic. 5 months, disappointing experience. 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. 6 weeks for a desk reject. No evidence that the editor read even the abstract. 3 reports. "not enough contribution". Extremely valuable referee reports and advices from the editor. All excellent reports, and good suggestions from the co-editor about what to focus on and where to send next. Useful reports, good summary by editor. Editor desk rejected stating that paper (which was on the program of Top 3 conferences etc.) This is expected as I am not part of the editor's inner circle. Editor rejected after R&R without providing any referee report (note: journal name has now changed to International Journal of Health Economics and Management, International Journal of Industrial Organization. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and about two months in the second round. Relatively Quick Process. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Nonder they are going down in ranking in Dev Econ steadily. . recommended Journal of Development Economics. Referee said there is a mistake in the proof. Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. Seems as though they did not like the content and were looking for an excuse to reject. I waited six weeks for an inaccurate, one paragraph referee report? First round of referee reports obtained in another 2 months. Welcome to the EconTrack Job Market Information Board, a service hosted by the AEA. Suggested field journal. Very short to the point referee report. One not very helpful/professional report. Surprised at how quickly all went. The paragraph/comment not constructive. 2 fairly helpful reports. Avoid at all costs.. low quality and very short referee report Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text. Annoying! Great feedback from editor, and semi-useful reviews. Rather pleasant experience. Editor decided to reject it. I get it. 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. Desk reject would have been more efficient, They editors are very efficient. Think one more time before sending here. Provided very useful comments. Very mixed report quality. Some warm words from the editor. 51 of 55 African countries snub Ukraine Economics Job Market Rumors Candidate Job Market Roster. Other referee didn't have a clue. The editor's letter was well-written. Quick, professional, very acceptable decision. The reviewer didn't even bother to read after page 8. One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. One very constructive and positive report from economist, and one worst-I-ever-recieved report from a law scholar (maybe). The time was not long (bit less than 10 weeks), the outcome was what is normal in this profession (Referee rejection). Job Market. 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. In all the rejection was fair. AE also helpful. My paper was a comment, so I consider this pretty slow. Rejected in 10 days. However, they want to reject whatever you want. Seems like a sound reason. Desk reject after 30 hours, helpful comments from the editor. The referee completely misunderstood a *very* basic primary school model and then went on to criticize and complain about the empirical results. The paper was under minor revisions. See Alice Wu's paper for details. Will submit there in the future. Nice words from the editor. All of them are much speedier and you will actually get helpful comments that will improve your paper. Bad experience. Where would you rank Michigan/Ross finance now? At this point, the editor asked us to review the abstract and the highlights. One report was very useful. Quick response. Long waiting for 10 months, send 3 emails to ask, reply: under review, some useful comments from ref despite recommending reject. First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. Job market wiki Economics Job Market Rumors Awful experience. In a word, this is not a serious journal. The editor also read the paper and gave very good comments and suggestions. Very quick handling but refereeing quality just absurd. Very quick response from Larry Katz. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. The editor brought in a tie breaker 3rd, who wrote a very terse reject. The paper is accepted in another journal now. One reviewer seemed to think a clean accept, one was 'not really convinced'. It is frustrating to get rejected after convincing the referees. Job Postings | The Econometric Society Econ Job Market Rumors Accounting | Now Hiring Bad experience. One low quality (taste-based) referee report. Ref report definitely helpful. one referee suggested revision, one rejection, editor followed the rejection; good reports, suggestions improved the paper, Two revisions but rejected by editor, fast and fair comments, One accept with min comments, one said ok but many points/revisions, one reject, editor said too large a revision without guarantee for accept, 1 report recommended to publish, 1 pointed out minor points. Suggest field journal. 2 constructive reports that improve the paper after 2 months. Pleasant first publication experience. Reject because aparently would not fit in their journal. The other review was somewhat on point in its criticism, though I can'r give him/her the credit as the shortcoming was itself mentioned in the paper. Revision took about 1 week, one of the reviewers requested additional data/info about the methods used. The bar is high for Exp Econ. one ok report, one very hostile. Will never submit again to ER. Conley is a very nice Editor. It's the kind of disappointment that makes you stop caring about research. 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. Finished revision in 1 month and once resubmitted took them 2 weeks to accept. Overall, paper first sent in November and accepted in next August! Referee reject after more than a year. Almost 4 weeks for desk rejection. R&r from the editor with major changes suggested by one referee and the urge to strongly orientate the paper towrds one of her (editor) papers. One referee report excellent. Very unlucky submission: First round Reject and Resubmit. he clearly read the paper. It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Some valid points, but overall Kahn's criticism was thin. Second ref put thought into it but was of a heterodox stripe that I'm not. Good report from reviewers. Standard comments, paper's topic just not good enough. Suggested a general interest journal. 3 week desk reject. Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. She admitted having forgotten about it until 8 months later and sent us a rejection. A serious fraud: Fake JF and RFS conditional acceptances, "Leftover women" problem hits US dating market, New "Family Ruptures" AER / NBER is rip-off of obscure paper, Schiraldi (LSE) and Seiler (Stanford) false coauthors of AER publication, Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School, Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO). Good experience overall. Desk rejected after 40 days. Two reports negative and one positive, editor chooses to reject. To summarize, this reviewer apparently thought he had better English than Shakespeare. Transfer from another Elsevier journal - additional round of R&R but easily satisfied and made the paper better. Very quick and extremely professional. Notice that I submitted there on the basis of the widely publicized (EEA Gothenburg) fastness of this journal. A bit slow, but good comments by the referee. Both referees agreed and specifically pointed out that the manuscript should be published. Took almost 3 months for the first reports. Our results didn't change. if we go by his saying, then all finance articles are purely pointless. I would submit again or recommend this outlet! What follows is a summary of what I see as the key advice, with links to other resources that go into more depth or do a better job than I can. One positive and one negative report. At every round, it took them only 2 months to respond back. Rejected at ECMA, told a great fit at ReSTAT, desk rejected with generic letter after two days (and I'm in the club), 2.5 months for a desk reject with no feedback (labor paper). Two helpful referee reports. So do keep an eye on the paper and cotnact the editor if necessary. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. Quite fast luckily. Unfortunately paper was assigned to handling editor who was on study leave. Desk reject in 7 days. Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor. Super fast review. Helpful comments from the editor. That is, the handling of the submission took almost 4 months, I think this is unacceptable: what is the point to have quick referee reports if the editorial team takes such a long time? The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. 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. AER Insights: Generic rejection without any thought or suggestion. SHAME on you. Duke University. Which.a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. several days. Some reasons given. Horrible experience. Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. Accepted without need for further revisions. One good referee report. Still took 3 months. Comical journal. Very efficient process. One rejected outright, one offered R&R. Fair rejection. One of the best outlet for phd students. Note: previous desk rejected paper there was published in a much better journal. Paper sent to an editor with completely different interests. One referee gave lots of great comments, while the other referee was pretty much useless. Took 6 weeks. Do not send your papers to this journal. Crappy journal with crappy editor. One paragraph report when decision finally made. half a page report. 1 month to wait for a desk reject is too long. The referee also pretended that I did not develop a two-sided hypothesis (comment like "why didn't the author think of this? Deadline: 2023-03-06. 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. Great editor who was great at handling the process and chasing referees. The response was I forgot to pay the submission fee. low-quality referee reports. This, of course, is useless. Sounded like the referees couldn't let go off other papers' methodologies. Single-blind review system for a 250 bucks fee. Excellent experience. Overall good experience. Please post listings by subject area. Quick responds. Editor chose to follow the suggestion of the AE. Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. Desk rejected in 2 weeks. Nice experience despite a rejection. No negative comments from referees on the substance, but one referee just didn't like it. Referee reports were lenthy and very useful. Both referees clearly read the paper and discussed potential concerns of the analysis. -> Toilet. Although my manuscript wa based on stochastic processes, editor rejected it since they were not expert in applied econometrics. I expected something more serious from a journal with such a high submission fee. 10 days for desk reject. They like the paper but the contribution not enough for Econometrica. Insightful and constructive comments. Referees ok, not great. That's right. Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. One referee posted two of his own papers including url in the report, one of which was just accepted in the same journal before sending reports. Recommended to try other health journals. I had notice that it was sent to reviewers in. A second round of minor revision was requested. Editor agreed = reject. desk reject, but editor basically provided a referee report, desk reject - generic letter from editor who did not like the topic. Basically got a response on the next working day following a weekend. Clearly a club journal. One referee was OK with almost no comments. Desk rejected after 1 month. Based on the large volume of submissions we receive bla bla, Unfathomably long time to first decision, referee comments impleid the paper was not read diligently, despite being just 4-5 pages. 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) THREE MONTHS! One useless report, and one very useful report. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. Would definitely recommend it even if it's a longshot. it.?I? Editor agreed to R&R and suggested major changes but then didn't like the resulting paper. All editors have lined up to publish their own papers (just see the forthcoming papers, 3 (three!!) Two reports that are quite detailed. AE recommended another journal. Editor didn't read the paper, based her decision on reports. Submission to a special issue. 2 weeks for desk rejection. The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. Total waste of time. She was formerly director of macroeconomic policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, and a Section Chief at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, where she worked in various capacities from 2007 to 2019. It was a long process but the editor and referees were genuinely helpful. After ref rejection at an AEJ submitted here we followed editors suggestion and submitted to JUE. Thoughtful comments from the referees and the editor.
econ job market rumors wikiwhat website assists the educational services officer
Posted in 100 facts about scorpio female.