Most dishonest rejection. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. Excellent reports. Candidate Job Market Roster: Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. 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. One of them was very detailed. Referee report was short and commented on halve of the paper. Desk rejected. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. quick process, helpful reports and editor comments, Kind reject from the editor after a week, providing reasons why the paper was rejected, 6 months to receive 2 reports. Good report and conditionally accepted with minor revisions. 2-pages report, few suggestions. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. -- Divided referee reports. Quick and professional handling by the editor. Now Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. Avoid at all cost. is ?so ?poor? A good referee report and very efficient editor. After 3 weeks this would have been acceptable. Job Market. The paper was accepted after one round of submission. desk reject after three months editor claimed they did not publish papers on this topic but they bogh b, actually submitted in 2017; desk rejection after 1 week; short and friendly answer of editor; however inconclusive, editoral. The paper was published in 2016, Decent referee reports that indeed improve the paper. Excellent editorial service from Bruno Biais. Chiara Paz and Alice Wang. Rejected for arbitrary reasons. Accepted without revisions. the ?author? Recommend trying better journal. The negative one says there is no methodology novelty. Contacting the editor twice did not result in speeding up the process (but we received at least a reply). Fair decision. The editor rejected the manuscript without any useful comments. Very smooth process in general, no complaints. Nothing that indicated they read the paper or even seriously considered it. Was rejected today by editor as only 1/2 referee reports submitted. Great experience. President, University of Applied Sciences in Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). One positive, three negative. Expedient. Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING. Some reviewers disappeared after the first review, the editors could't even find an alternative, and the comments were not assessed critically by the editors due to an editorial change. Amazing efficiency. Great process, fortunate to make it past desk as LRM grad student, very helpful ref report received 8 days after submission. Desk reject in 4 hours. Only one semi-informative report. Very long wait. After pressing four times, they told me it was out for review. One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. Nice when they actually read the paper. Desk reject in two weeks. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. complimentary with some comments but said focus was too narrow, Good feedback from eitor, very quick desk reject. Poorly managed journal. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. WBER changes editor and the new editor (Pavcnik) reject the paper. Comments are constructive. Good editor. helpful comments; quick process; good experience. Horrible experience, late response, useless report. As best I can tell, the purpose is to use a particular modeling framework to illustrate that a trade policies defined in terms of 'import-export' quotas cannot yield a Nash equilibrium of the trade game. In reality, the paper is poorly motivated and the link between the model and the anecdotal evidence discussed in the introduction is not clear. I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. The AE also provided his own review. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. improved paper based on comments. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). Only have issues with one of the reviewers. No reason provided, in line with the journal policy. Overall, not bad experience. Three poor reports. Lousy comments from the Editor in chief. Total turn around time was about 40 days. Either way, unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness. Desk rejected, one sentence given. Second report little use. They kept the application fee. Duh, Very helpful response from editor giving specific reasons that the manuscript would not be sent to referees, Thanks for your joining the Society, by the way, we don't think your historical paper with brand new historical data is right for a history journal. Some of the people at my lower Fair decision, referee reports pointed out major flaw but hardly in a way that could be called constructive. When pressed, editor said we weren't doing the same things as everyone else. Job Market. Very good experience, Good experience. Very good reports, very effective handling of the editor. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. 2 rounds of r&r. An incompetent referee and an editor that could not care less of how slow the process was: a lethal combo, Quick decision, with some useful comments in the reports. Editor did not intervene and kept hiding throughout. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Close callEditor gave the benefit-of-a-doubt and requested revisions, one good referee, the other not very good, helpful editor, overall, pretty smooth process (always easier to say when the paper ends up being published). Editor suggested JIE. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience! Single ref report had three very minor questions. Editor not helpful at all. The second round of review only took 3 weeks. Desk reject after 2 months. I really appreciated the clarity the editor provided in helping to navigate the referee reports. An uprising journal so I recommend people to publish here. Generic rejection letter from the editor arguing lack of fit. Good process (and none of the coauthors are from 02139). 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. Second referee made some useful suggestions. A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!! Clearly no effort was put into it. Top scholars if it comes to RCTs, but no broaded view. Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. Will not submit here again. Very good reports that help us to improve the paper a lot. The reviewer and the editor did not understand the paper. Very quick response. Some valid points, but overall Kahn's criticism was thin. Two referee reports: one decent, one poor. Editor desk rejected after a couple of days due to lack of fit. Glad that they didn't waste my time. 1 useless report, 1 very helpful and 1 okay. Shleifer was the editor. Simply put, the reviewer does not believe in my results (simulations from calibrated macroeconomic model). However, my paper is abotu China and Institutions, two things strongly encouragede according to their mission statement. Fair and useful comment by the editor. I wonder whether they actually read the document. All editors have lined up to publish their own papers (just see the forthcoming papers, 3 (three!!) Great experience. Hastily written by PhD student. The co-editor was very efficient and apparently read the paper. Desk reject took four days. This is expected as I am not part of the editor's inner circle. Fairly helpful referee report. Seven months at least the reports where good. 2 was more critical. We made almost all of the changes required by the referees and the editor accepted it. Editor was a bit harsh. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. Two referees in the first round, good comments. Really bad experience! Here is all I received: "I regret to inform you that as part of a pre-screening process applied to all submitted manuscripts to the JDE, I have read your paper and have decided not to put it into the regular review process. Desk rejected by Katz within 24 hours. Good reports overall. Editor rejected the paper, but it was not unexpected. Editor read/scanned desk rejected paper. Fast and efficient. Will not b submitting here again until editorial board changes. Desk/ref rejected. Desk rejected within 3 days with idiotic comments, as usual. Two useful reports. Never again! I'm amazed. Took a while, but great experience overall. Will never submit here again. Strong and professional editors! Very good editor recommending a field journal. Worst experience with a journal so far. 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. The Editor Requate cannot distinguish between partial and general equilibrium. And once that was done, he wanted us to rewrite the article. Bad experience. We asked to see the reports but the editor did not send them. Very quick response. The whole process took about a little bit more than a year, which is very good. The acceptance came quickly after the second round of review. Not sure whether it should be called "desk rejection" as the editor said he asked a friend who is an expert in the field to review my paper rather than sending it to referees. One referee report after 11 months. Advisors: Raquel Fernndez, Martin Rotemberg, Elena Manresa. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Good referee reports, very nice editor (Thomas Lange), International Journal of Production Economics. Paper desk rejected in 3 days. Polite, even quite positive reports. Very slow, 4 months waiting of the revise and resubmit, it's now two months since I submitted in and no word. Very slow. Referee 2 was completely positive and was clearly knowledgeable of field. Quite annoyed at this journal - AE provided verbatim the referee rejection from another submission journal from three months prior. Accepted as it is. took 5 months. I was worried about the wait, but in the end got a very good editorial letter (from Reis) with great suggestions. almost useless and the editor is too slow. Our paper went through four rounds and finally accepted after one year of its submission. I wish them luck. The editor also read the paper and gave very good comments and suggestions. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. Bad to useless reports after an unacceptably long response time. Sent my paper to another different journal. Lowest quality referee reports ever received. Overall a good experience that will help the paper! got the impression that the reviewer did not read the paper and decided to dispute the review, the dispute process took slightly more than 1 month and the new reviewer sided with the old reviewer. Job Market Candidates. Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. All referee reports were gave entirely stylistic comments with no real grounds for rejection. Generic desk reject within 2 weeks. Helpful comments from referees and editor. Some unfair comments about replicating what other papers have done (which are already discussed in the paper!) your paper, after some updating to reflect the recent complementary literature, would be more appropriate for a more specialized journal. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a papers contribution. completely ?misread? . Such along time frame for such a poor assessment of the paper. The editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions. Submitted the paper 11:45. 6 months and no feedback from the journal whtsoever. Worthless garbage report, no redeeming value. Reports with no use, in one case even mentioning the need of something that was already done in the paper. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. Two month for two detailed reports. plus for a quick turnaround. Despite being so tough, all comments were fair and refs wrote great reports that dramatically improved the paper. Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. Hello! Eight months is a long wait though. 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful). Recommend. Not easy - but straightforward. No regrets, Good reports, not extremely helpful, but good. Not enough novelty. He/she also asked for the summary statistics of my high frequency data while I already provided the estimates of bid-ask spread, price impact, order flow autocorrelation of each month for the entire contracts which shows his lack of knowledge about market microstructure. The contribution of the paper as it stands to be insu cient for publication in The Econometrics Journal. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. Referees did not bother to read the paper. Useful comments from editor; one really great ref. instantaneous rejection, however, without any comments, 5 Weeks for a desk reject without comments. Seems as though they did not like the content and were looking for an excuse to reject. The worst experience so far. Name Department Contact Subfield . 1 great, 1 so so, 1 absolutely trash (the referee only argued on the reliability of the benchmark case, which is a well established result in the literature!!!). The two anonymous referees were surely competent even though they did not go in depth as the editor did. Suggested to send to another journal! The final version of the proof was more elegant as a result, I am very appreciative of the reviewers and the editor. Encouraging and polite comments from editor. Expected a bit better. Note that some areas need filling in with actual pages. Desk rejected within 10 days. Ref2 was not. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. a? Comments just so-so. 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. Best experience in a long time. ", Fast response. very comprehensive report. Reason cited: weak paper. 2 weeks. Very fair. SHAME on you. The referee reports were also awful. Editor clearly read the paper. No substantive comments about the content of the paper at all. Revise and resubmit. I must say second reviewer report was 1 and a half line and in my view it is the most unscientific report I have ever seen. I withdrew the paper. Surprisingly, she had one-page long useful comments, which helped improve the paper. Reports very helpful. Very good experience: I wish all my rejected submissions were as fast and polite. One report only, not very helpful, relatively slow for just one report. It took 7 months until the JORS provided two referee reports of poor quality (one refere suggested to replace GMM with FE regression because it is impossible to solve endogeneity completely). Seriously, avoid this journal. April 16, 2022. Isnt it written that this journal focuses on mathematical reasoning instead of sticking to conventional setup? One report very solid and useful, another (two-paragraph one) looks confusing. Very inefficient handling of the work. Two month later it is rejected and get two referee reports (fair enough there). but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. Unbased rejection after more than six months with mediocre reports and editorial justification. Nothing more frustrating than paying to submit a paper that was desk rejected after 2 months with no reason given for rejection "I find the overall contribution too small to justify publication in AEJ". Contact Us 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 617-868-3900 [email protected] [email protected]. No feedback at all. Four months for a desk reject! Some of the most useful and thorough referee reports I've gotten. One referee report---which is actually better than any report ever received with this paper (including those from RFS, JFQA, and MS). !. will definitely try it again next time. Desk rejected within two weeks. 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. Editor was our de facto 2nd referee. by Tatonnement Oct 1, 2008 18:58:14 GMT -5: Legend. awful experience. Editor also read the paper and took the call - explained that the paper was better suited at a good field journal given referee assessments of contribution to literature. Tough reports that required a lot of work but ultimately improved the paper significantly. Positive comments from the editor. The editor (George Weebly) made inconsistent statements that did not match with the statments in the paper or from the refrees.The referees made good comments. One referee said "take it", two said "we dislike coauthor, he published something similar in psych journal, do not take". Bit disappointing given the high fee. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. We may have been aiming too high. It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. Two weeks for a desk rejection. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement. The reviewers "firmly" recommend rejection but I see that most problems can be fixed. One report was very useful. 2 days to get a desk rejection. A journal to avoid. Fairly quick acceptance. I expected better from this journal. One stern but very helpful referee report (five pages, competent and extremely detailed) in two weeks. Two referee reviews. Desk rejected within 2 days. no submission fee but fast response and fair referee report. Very late and vague one page referee report, rejection based on perceived bad fit with journal. Good reports that were specific and helpful. Suggested a more specialized journal. more months, before rejection based on superficial comments. Eight weeks to get two very high-quality reports. The referee must be some leading scholar in the field and I just wanna say thanks to him/her. Welcome to the Academic Jobs Wiki. Very efficient. The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. good reports; excellent editor who acts like an additional referee. For three months the editor has not assigned referees! Moffitt desk rejected, suggested a field journal. Between two referee reports and two conference discussions, I have some things to consider for future submission. Editor seemed to have liked the paper despite ref rejection. Clearly the referee was someone not in the field of the paper (Asset Pricing). San Jose, CA. The policy of the journal is to let each author appoint the referees, which improves speed on one hand but generates citation groups on the other hand. Terribly run journal. It takes the editor a long time to respond but the comments are very helpful. 7 months for 2 reviews (and one reviewer was already familiar with paper). Receive reports from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. Worst experience so far. The reports were very brief (. Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! desk reject in 2.5 hrs? Had to withdraw after waiting for nearly a year and a half. Nice words from Editor. No reports provided, but editor made brief helpful comments. Placement Officers: Pete Klenow 650-725-2620 [email protected]. Extremely valuable referee reports and advices from the editor. 2 Reports. Desk rejection after 8 days. Basically, just a short e-mail saying that it cannot be accepted and it is more suited to some other types of Journals. Would submit again. Will submit again (other work, of course) on the basis of professionalism and treatment. We were authorized to hire 2 macro candidates, and we have now done so. Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. Some helpful comments. KS rejected based on AE's brief report; AE comments somewhat useful but a tad unfair (main criticism applies to many papers publ. Desk-rejected in 3 days. Not worth the time wasted. Still took 3 months. Bad report, condescending. 1 very helpful report. No comments about the paper itself. Mean and non-sense comments from one referee so that the editor had to apologize. Worst experience ever. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. Paper sent to an editor with completely different interests. Offers and negotiating. That mean 5 people read my paper? One good report, one bad report. candidates received letter saying search now closed- did anyone get the position? My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Wayne State University (Economics) View all current job postings. I dont care whether you want to increase citations and impact factor fo your journal. Search by field of study. Reasonable. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. 2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper. Will submit again in the future! Awesome experience. Quick and well handled by the editor. Per editor, not good fit for IO bent of the journal, not broad enough for general interest journal. Useful reports and fast turnaround. One referee seemed inexperienced and little informative comments. Comments from editor suggested issues were "fixable" but then basically suggested changing the ID strategy, which basically amounts to writing a whole new paper. Desk rejected in two weeks. Paper desk rejected in 4 days. Receive desk rejection in 24 hours, editor read the paper and suggested to top field journal. Editor rejected after two positive referee reports. One good report and the other mediocre. In any case, the paper is not a good match for the JIE, both because it is highly technical and (more importantly) because it is more of a trade theory paper than an IO paper. Great experience in general! 6 months after that paper online. waiting 19 months as of today, sent 3 reminfers, Hall nor anybody else from the journal havent responded so far to any of my emails. Fast. Could have been more lucky with referees, but at least it was very efficient. Very efficient process. They pocketed the submission fee, though! Made paper better. It's going to be most accurate for economics, political science, public policy & other professional schools. great referee report, great editor, not so great AE, Two good reports providing many suggestions regarding how I should modify and extend the paper. A very similar paper came out a month after our paper got rejected, new paper's authors are closely tied to this journal. One referee report excellent. Provided very useful comments. Will not consider it again. University of Sheffield. One referee openly mentioned s/he doesnt like the method used in the paper. Joerg Baten seems to be literally an idiot making me wonder how he got picked. Split recommendations, editor decided to reject which is fair enough. Nice comments and feedback from Associate Editor. Overall, good experience. Helpful and doable things. But the comments helped. Very short and no relevant comments. Technical issues handled by non-experts. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. 1 referee with small reasonable suggestions. The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. The closures follow the consequences of the 2020 BLM-Antifa riots that . The report had a few good notes but none that really seemed to disqualify the paper from getting an R&R.