Very good referee reports. Overall, not bad experience. Comments were useful and recommended a tier of journal to try next. More than 16 weeks!! DK carefully read and gave constructive feedback. 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. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy, Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript. Woman completes quintessentially English mission to eat 244 scones across U.K. terrible experience, after submission my paper was not sent out to referees for more than 6 months. The referee made also several nonsensical remarks about the methodology giving a signal that s/he hasnt thoroughly went through the paper. 1 R&R round. Two weeks desk reject. Some nice words from the editor. Reports were not fair but at least fast response. Jerome Adda was editor. 1 month to wait for a desk reject is too long. he clearly read the paper. reports, the reports were all nice an constructive. Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE. 2 rounds of r&r. Painfully crushing rejection, as all referees agreed it was a good paper, but had some valid concerns about length and possible general interest contribution. And because he could not find theoretical contributions. Recommended field journals Clueless editor thinks results are of narrow interest. After submitting revisions, 1 month until final decision to accept with no other edits. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. No response. Sent it to another top 5 instead where it got accepted after one round of revisions - never give up guys! Desk rejected after 3 days. Fast and fair. Three weeks for a desk reject. Economics Job Market Rumors. Good comments, helped improve the paper. Seems like being rejected in virtue of the magnificence of the journal. WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable commentvery well run journal, fast and no submission fee! 2 reports + report from AE which is a lot better than referee reports. Quick handling, competent (positive) reports. 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. After revision, paper accepted in a week. 1 good Referee and good Editor. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. 5 months for one low-quality referee report. Pretty smooth process, with Eric Leeper being very kind and helpful. Two very useful ref reports in the first round. rejected in exactly three weeks - editor said that the topic only gets published in JEBO if there's a special issue (which mine was not connected with). Terrible screening process at this journal. My paper was on Covid and one ref was clearly not an economist, suggesting medical/health indicators, references and logic; impossible to satify I think with economics arguments. After 10 months, my manuscript was still listed as "awaiting referee assignment", and no one at the journal would respond to my e-mails about the paper, so I withdrew it. Very efficient process, better than expected. 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) Desk reject after 2 months. Not a good referee match given papers subject matter and therefore not very useful comments. Transfer from another Elsevier journal. 4 months for ref. Lots of minor standardized formating requests, then a gap of 10 weeks to get accepted. Poor report! Good comments, made the paper better. paper rejected after one round of R&R due to extremely negative attitude of the one referee. Referee clearly didn't read the paper carefully. great experience. 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) Mark Ramseyer. Receive reports from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. quality reviewers. Seemed like a very long time to only receive one referee report. Editor didn't read the paper. Very different experience from the first time. Made comments about Maximum Likelihood etc when I was using Method of Simuated Moments. Placement Administrator: Stephanie Burbank 650-725-6198 sburbank@stanford.edu. Two helpful referee reports. almost useless and the editor is too slow. One very helpful referee report, 2 not so helpful. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. Would submit here again. Referee process could be streamlined (take too long), but overall a good experience. Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Ok, experience if it wouldnt be for the 11 months. Desk reject in a few hours with very impersonal email. Generic rejection. Will avoid in the future. long waiting time. Two reports of middling quality. This is a wiki for tracking searches in various categories for academic (i.e. Avoid this shitty journal. Submitted in 2012. Recommend. Terribly run journal. Referee report was positive and recommended R&R. Overall efficient and fair but demanding process. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. The Referee Report was very helpful and quite positive. Two reports were reasonable and one report was very low quality. 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. Avoid at all costs. Both refs postive but think the topic is not a good fit for the journal. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. Desk rejected the same day! Thanks for quick decision. Desk reject with generic letter at 3 weeks. Desk reject in a week. econjobrumors.com Top Marketing Channels. Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. Good reports. Three high quality referee reports. Good report. Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. editor is dumber than a second coat of paint. The whole process was fast and streamlined. Lorentzen (BI Norway), Lieber (Chicago), Lyngse (Copenhagen), Ststad (PSE), Osun (Maryland), Majewska (Toulouse), Nord (EUI), Sverud (Copenhagen), Zillessen (Oxford), Carry (CREST), Airaudo (Carlos III), See https://www.economics.ku.dk/Calendar/seminars/, Shunsuke Tsuda (Brown), Catherine van der List (UBC), Victor Pouliquen (Oxford), Evgeny Yakovlev (NES), Andreas Ziegler (Amsterdam), Valerio Pieroni (UAB), Thomas Brzustowski (LSE), Assistant/Associate/Full Professor-Ag and Applied Economics, University of Georgia (Terry College of Business), Thereze (Princeton); Lee (Princeton); Geddes (Northwestern); Vitali (UCL); Crews (Chicago); Cai (Northwestern); Kang (Stanford GSB); Bodere (NYU), Bodere (NYU), Cai (Northwestern), Thereze (Princeton), AP of Economics at Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan Ross School of Business, Serna (Wisconsin), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Qiu (Penn), Geddes (Northwestern), Altmann (Oxford), Kleinman (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Kahou (UBC) Kim (Penn) Holz (Northwestern) Holz (Chicago Harris) Wang (Rochester) Arbour (Toronto) Lee (Chicago Harris) Wasser (Cornell) Robinson (UCSB), Development, Political Econ, Applied Micro, Lecturer (Assistant Professor), Senior Lecturer and/or Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Yes- some girl accepted offer then took another job, Aina (Zurich), Bertazzini (Oxford), pires (berkeley), oliveira (berkeley), schief (brown), uccioli (MIT), sartre (brown), Sartre (Brown), Bertazzini (Oxford), Uccioli (MIT), Skoda (Zurich), De Vera (CEMFI), Sui (Rochester), Aina (Zurich), Ghersengorin (PSE), Hancart (UCL), de Carvalho (UBC), Gavan (UPF), Milson (Oxford), Schneider (UZH), Vattuone (Warwick), Herstad (Chicago), von Carnap (IIES), Lorentzen (BI), Altmann (Oxford); See https://tinyurl.com/mryuahhm, Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford), Sung (Columbia), Lanteri (Duke), Hui (LSE), Nord (EUI), Cruces (UC3M), Williams (Yale), Marto (Penn), Trouvain (Michigan), Sturm (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton); Lanzani (MIT); Cai (Northwestern);Guerreiro (Northwestern); Nord (EUI); Ederer (TSE); Starck (Brown); Bellue (Mannheim); Diop (Oxford); Banchio (Stanford GSB); Pernoud (Stanford); Saxena (Harvard); Souchier (Stanford); Vitali (UCL); Sharma; Serna (Wisconsin), Wheeler (UC Berkeley), Bagga (UT Austin), Gutierrez (Chicago), Szerman (Princeton), Crews (Chicago), Nord (EUI), Peng (Penn), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), University of Rochester (Simon Business School), Arkhangelsky (CEMFI AP), Bai (Michigan AP), Pouliot (Chicago Harris AP), Chang (Yale), Cai (Northwestern), https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/index.php/index/research/seminars?dateRange=past&seriesId=0, Sarah Robinson (UC Santa Barbara), Justin Wiltshire (UC Berkeley), Katherine Rittenhouse (UC San Diego), Christopher Mills (Princeton), Eduardo Medina Cortina (UIUC), Arielle Bernhardt (Harvard), Jenya Kahn-Lang (Berkeley), Katherine Riitenhouse (UCSD), Gina Li (Stanford), Stephanie Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Flynn (MIT), Wang (Stanford), Lu (Stanford), Leombroni (Stanford), Seth (LBS), Singla (LBS), Ptashkina (UPF) Sileo (Georgetown) Gutirrez (Chicago) Chang (Yale) Shen (UCLA) Kohlhepp (UCLA) Cai (Northwestern) Morazzoni (UPF) Wong (Columbia) Carry (CREST) Nimier-David (CREST) Chen (Stanford GSB) Bodr (NYU) Tintelnot (Chicago AP) Beaman (Northwestern AP) Lamadon (Chicago AP) Kang (CMU AP), Risk and Insurance at Wisconsin School of Business, Rao (UCSD), Wiseman (Berkeley ARE), Rexer (Wharton), Giaccobasso (UCLA), Yucheng Yang (Princeton), Sofonias Korsaye (SFI), Matteo Leombroni (Stanford), Yes, 2/05/2023 according to EconTrack (who? Referees did not show good knowledge of the subject. Comments were not very helpful. My experience with other journals when there is only 1 referee, the editor always provides a report detailing their reasons for accepting or rejecting the paper. Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. The referees responded very quickly and with excellent, high quality reports. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. 1 reviewer was clearly an expert, 2 others were less thorough than might be expected, one recommended R&R the other did not read the paper was clearly ideologically biased, the editor sided with the latter, Quick process, referees made some good comments, not a bad experience, one positive referee report, one negative referee report. Some good comments though. Would choose again. 19 Jun 2023. suggest some field journals. Efficient process and fast decision. 14 days to desk reject, worthless generic email that said nothing on why it was rejected, merely that they "get lots of papers. Would submit again. Please add AERi to the combo box. 3 weeks. In terms of rejections this is probably as good as it gets. Two lines ref report. 3 week desk reject. Told not a fit. However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. Valid rejection. very efficient process but experience depends crucially on editor. Not even a single remotely useful comment. Referee 2 was completely positive and was clearly knowledgeable of field. The editor did put more weight on the negative one. The first referee points out at the weaknesses of the paper and proposes reasonable solutions. Editor agreed. This post is a continuous work in . Terrible single line report from editor (after 16 months of waiting). Editorial board review and then rejection. The shitty one referred to multiple papers in very low ranked journals authored by the same set of authors. basic IV! Desk reject in one week. Two useful reports. One line "referee report". The editor did give us advice to split the paper in two, although he didn't really provide a justification for rejection. One report useless, read only the first quarter of the paper. Amazing efficiency. Disappointing referee: a few useful comments, but mostly low-grade and somewhat hostile. plus for a quick turnaround. At least the process was fast. Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days. Could have desk rejected and saved us all the trouble. Rejection came on Easter morning. Harsh critical comments from the editor, a useful report from the referee. Very constructive comments in the 1st round, quicking converging in the 2nd round. The comments from the editor are also disappointing: his main suggestion is to send our 7,500 words paper to economics letters. Resubmitted after 3+ months of work, but replies to referees went lost and paper got rejected. Great outcome. Economics Job Market Rumors. One very good referee report that helps improve the quality of the paper. One of the referee reports was of alarmingly low quality. Professional reports. He suggests AER Insights and top field journals. No comments whatsoever, in an un-signed email with 2 generic sentences, Desk rejected after one week with kind words from co-editor and recommended field journal, Poor justification, pure taste by Debraj Ray. Two horribly low quality reports. One extremely thorough and helpful report, one shorter but still raising valid points. Going through 15 months of the reviewing process. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. Unbelievable! 1 paragraph of superficial non-descriptive comments from each ref, One week to desk reject with no comment at all. One paragraph that dismissed four years of work. Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit. Took quite long for a desk rejection. Editor was changed, asked for electronic resubmission and paper got rejected. Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. Worst experience ever nearly one year just to hear "not much new, therefore reject" 100 bucks for nothing. The referee must be some leading scholar in the field and I just wanna say thanks to him/her. 1 short report (but good points) and 1 very long report. Expensive but quick. Quite fast I'd say, but comments were simple. I agree with most of the comments, but the bar for publication was exceptionally high, considering his relatively low position in the journal ranking. 6 weeks for a desk reject. Very short and no relevant comments. EconJobRumors.com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is a website for academic economists. Referee had positive comments and suggested revise and resubmit, but editor rejected it. Great comments from editors and referees. RR with major changes, then RR with minor changes, then accepted after 1 week. short straightforward paper, should take max 2 hours to read carefully,still under review, editor (Hall) non-responsive, waiting 30 months for response, editor not responding to inquiries. Two reports negative and one positive, editor chooses to reject. Nice words from the editor. No substantive comments from any of the three referees. good reports; excellent editor who acts like an additional referee. Click here for more information. It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. One report only, not very helpful, relatively slow for just one report. Valuable referee's reports. Duke University. Editor accepted the paper after we made some modifications recommended by the referee. A lot to revise, but editor gave only 2 months. Paper has since been published. Dislike for the computational results for no good reason. Desk accept? Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. Second round--took less than a month to get 2 detailed second reports from referees--impressive! a? It is a pity it was rejected, but I appreciate the quick response. Very good referee reports - largely positive but requiring some modifications, deleting one section. 2nd round 2 months. Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality. Not a particularly good experience, constructive reports, editor had read the paper and gave additional comments, One bad/objectively false report, one useful report. fair comment. Despite perceptions they do desk reject. Good overall experience. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. Desk rejected in less than one month. Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. Desk Reject in a Week but it did come with two pages of notes and questions that should help the paper. After 7 months of waiting. 1st round 2 1/2 months. The editor said that referee is an expert in this field. Horrible experience. Nice editor. The structure of the game, the policy and strategy spaces and other concepts are not introduced with sufficient clarity. They are also very slow! 2 strong reports with valid empirical critiques, 1 less so. 1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). Quite good reports and sufficiently fast process. Definitely recommend submitting to the journal. 7 months waiting for one poor referee report rejecting the paper for an unwarranted wording issue. It has had it uses as a source of gossip but it accumulated the worst of any group of mostly 20 something American men. Referee seemed have little idea about the field or didn't read my 7 page paper. Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff. Said they would refund the submission fee, which is nice. Waste of time. Accepted two weeks after r&r. Rejection based on fit. It took 1 year from submission to acceptance, but the journal was quick, I took to long to do the revisions. Paper sent to an editor with completely different interests. Horrible treatment. Rubbish report ! However, the editor (Mallick) kindly suggested to add papers from this journal ("As there is not citation from this journal when the journal has published several papers on this topic"). Desk rejection came in 10 days. Desk rejected within 1 week. Useless referee reports--one was just a single short paragraph. 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. I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. Quick acceptance after revision. Fair and constructive comments. Fair and quick process. I had to contact the Editor after 2 months of seeing no change in status on my manuscript. Very good comments from both the reviewers and editors. Good experience. Paper was internally valid-(ish) but not a big enough contribution. 6 months for a referee report written by a plain imbecile who could not even derive Proposition 1. Horrible! The editor emailed me after 6 days and said he read and liked the paper. Very poor quality referee report after waiting for more than 7 months. Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject. [2] [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors . Three reports, all of high quality, within 2 months. Clear and concise communication with insightful and prfound comments by editor and reviewers. Hastily written by PhD student. You have to earn it! Two of three referees did not read the paper. Very fast. Heckman handled paper. The report must have been farmed out to some grad student who couldn't write. Rejected with a 1-page AE report, after almost 3 months. Quite annoyed at this journal - AE provided verbatim the referee rejection from another submission journal from three months prior. Editor (Taylor) gave additional advice. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Ref reports quite useful. Desk rejected in a few days. Definetely the referees liked the idea and wanted to improve paper's quality not to argue with its contribution. Super fast process than I had expected. Rejected by editor. University of Sheffield. One positive and two negative reports. Desk rejected in 2 days. I do nto think my paper was taken very seriously. Fair editor. 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. May have a good chance at a higher ranked outlet but if considered speed and diversification then it was a good and correct decision to submit here. seven weeks to say poor fit when similar and cited papers are published there. We got referee rejection in 2.5 months: 2 referees, one favours RR, other rejects. Lucky to get past desk reject. Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. very comprehensive report. Referee obviously has no clue of what's going on. Quick and well handled by the editor. He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. Both referees are bad at econometrics. Pretty average speed compared to other journals. Referees mostly wanted me to provide more background and a deeper policy discussion. No meaningful comments. Unacceptable waiting time. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. Waiting was attrociious and final rejection not properly justified since reviewers went AWOL. Rejection reason: not general interest enough. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. One referee report was very good; the second was also modestly helpful. Editor picked reasonable comments, asked to take into account suggestions, accepted the paper after the referees agreed that what I did is reasonable. Editor says, "your paper poses only a very marginal contribution to the literature in theoretical economics. Desk rejected by Nigel Rice after almost 2 months, looking at the reason for rejecting the paper I had the feeling the editor did not read the paper. Seemed not to like the idea of the paper without actually reading it. The referee completely misunderstood a *very* basic primary school model and then went on to criticize and complain about the empirical results. Still not a fan of this journal. Editor probably didn't go beyond the abstract. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience. Not a good fit! Editor identity unknown. And some more nice words. I don't think he/she took a wee bit of pain to find out the context. The editor is very good with excellent referee reports. Elsevier is terrible, screwed up the transfer so took over a month to end up on editor's desk. 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. is ?so ?poor? 1 very useful report and associate editor comments. 2 weeks. No flyouts yet. Fairly helpful referee report. Desk reject in two days for not being general enough, $132 fee not refunded. My paper was not complicated and could have been rejected in 2-3 months easily. We did. 3 pages of helpful comments by the editor, suggested very good field journals instead, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society). Referees did not bother to read the paper. Expected a lot better from this journal. Horrible experience. Referees all showed an understanding of the paper and suggestions were useful. Good experience, great turnaround. A waste of 250$ and time. two positive reports and one strongly negative report; the editor Andrew Street gave me a R&R; after I spent one month writing a 30-page response, the negative referee still argued against my paper based on his misunderstanding of my paper; the editor finally chose to reject my paper based on the comments of this referee without careful reading. That indicates he/she did not finish reading the paper. Result not general enough for ECMA. one ok, one very short and superficial referee report. Very good referee reports. Two useful reports that improved the paper. Manuscript was withdrawn - editor had assigned referees within 3 months of submission but then these were apparently not forthcoming. 10 days for desk rejection decision. After more than 3 months of waiting, the paper was rejected with a one-sentence referee report. The editor rejected it though. Also good editing support. Every time I'm impressed by how precise the reviews and suggestions are. overall v good experience. Very good and useful referee reports. Not general interest enough. Reports submitted within one month. Three months. 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. Very good experience; desk reject with highly valuable and fair comments by the co-editor within 10 days. That's not true. 2 weeks. The referee cannot fully understand the model. Friendly referee with clear remarks. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO) Job Market. Turns out that means he's following the Schwert model: don't read the paper, regurgitate the reviewer's comments in the decision letter. An associate editor left some comments, which showed that they read at least some of the paper. Rejected within 24hrs by Katz. Total waste of time. Terrible, very short referee reports. Update to previous pending post. The AE finally conceded that I was right and the referee was wrong - but decided to reject the paper anyway! Comments from Larry very helpful. Good reports and no nitpicking on the revision. Not sure I'd call it a full referee report, however, and only receiving one report is strange. Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. Katia Meggiorin. Very slow. Seriously, avoid this journal. Editor was very reasonable. JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending). Got a form letter in 10 days. Very good comments even if he slightly misunderstood the contribution. 2 mildly useful reports. Although the other referee was positive, editor rejected it. Posted: (4 days ago) WebNov 2011 - Present10 years 4 months. Unfortunately the paper is rejected but I hope the reports help you improve the paper for another journal. Suggest field journal. Quick desk reject after less than 24 hours without comments, annoying given the submission fee. $ 200 is high for an immediat desk rejection, editor was helpful in replying to inquiry regarding reason for desk rejection. Actually a nice experience. Good helpful report asking for few corrections. best submission experience. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. Editor wrote report himself. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. The editor did point out a couple of interesting things. Long time to first response and had to chase up editor, but comments were helpful and editor was very engaged in the revision process. Too slow for a short paper, AE spent 4+ months to write very short and useless report. Negative reaction of referees. Two referee reports, each was half a page with very general comments about the lack of contribution to a general readership. editor did not read the paper carefully, waste of US$250. Job Market. Editor (Voth) was polite but did not say much. two weeks. Very bad reports. Very good experience. The low-quality report won out Reject with two solid reports. Waste of $100. The most idiotic referees I've ever seen. Very poor experience. Poor targeting on my part. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again, Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees. Unprofessional letters, one full of typo and pushed to a no-way-working direction; the other simply was wrong on his/her main comment.