Katz was encouraging. One good report, one bad report. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. Horrible reports. One referee gave lots of great comments, while the other referee was pretty much useless. Two days between handing in the revision and acceptance. Referees ok, not great. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. Very helpful feedback that made this a better paper. Desk rejected. Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. Third referee was slow and did not provide public report (he caused the delay). Conveyed no sense at all that anyone even looked at the paper. Rejected at ECMA, told a great fit at ReSTAT, desk rejected with generic letter after two days (and I'm in the club), 2.5 months for a desk reject with no feedback (labor paper). Two weeks. Report was fair and helpful and editor's letter was kind. It took a long time to hear back from the first round. 1 report (from different referees) each round. He sends you an email that he carefully read the paper and then you follow up a day after asking him about a clarification and his response was that he did not remember. Was pleased with the process, besides the rejection. Referee reports were very good, constructive and tough. Desk Reject, No Comment, Horrible Experience- THEY DO NOT REFUND the submission fee. Editor sent it to peer review in one day. 1 useless report, 1 very helpful and 1 okay. Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. Took quite long for a desk rejection. One referee not only did not read the paper but criticized something the paper does not do at all! And some more nice words. No evidence anyone read the paper, even though they probably have the highest submission fee among econ journals. The AE finally conceded that I was right and the referee was wrong - but decided to reject the paper anyway! Sounds fair. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. Comments dubious at best. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. Fast process, but very poor reviewer report. Job Market. Basically if you don't make everyone happy on the first round you stand no chance at this journal. Learn More About Katia. Another 2 months and a second round of very minor revisions. Probably the editor took a look at my zip code, and told the AE that "this should be quick". Very good referees. Note that since the editor(Batten) is handling many different journals at the same time, you should expect relatively slow turnaround time. Quick turnaround, helpful comments, will submit again, Desk rejected in less than a week. I don't know what to add. So they had no idea about basic econometrics. Quick first response with major r&r. frustrating, because paper not assigned to the editor who works in my field. Editor was polite. Would definitely recommend it even if it's a longshot. Good for knowing what people didn't like, but not clear how to improve. Recommend. Very professional way of handling the process, Very helpful report which has permitted to increase the quality of the paper. complimentary with some comments but said focus was too narrow, Good feedback from eitor, very quick desk reject. Referee's only objection is flat out incorrect (i discussed report with colleagues in my field). Pages for jobs that begin in 2023: African & African American Studies 2022-2023 American Studies 2022-2023 Anthropology 2022-2023 Archaeology 2022-2023 Art History 2022 . If? Editor (Collins) might read the paper, but did not say much. High quality editing. We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. Desk reject within two weeks. 4 weeks for first response. After 14 month a desk rejection arrived. [2] [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors . Editor suggests trying different journal. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. Although desk-rejected, I am very satisfied. Not a good experience. Absolutely disappointed by extremely poor response from the editor (Horioka). Extremely unprofessional. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. Awfully slow. International Review of Financial Analysis. Two rounds of R&R. Have contacted the editorail asistant three times (startung six weeks after submission) who said she would remind the editor. Job Market Paper: Sorting in the Marriage Market: The Role of Inequality and its Impact on Intergenerational Mobility. One detailed report. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. Reject and resubmit although both referees and AE advised revision. Not very useful comments from any of them. I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. Accepted as it is. Could've desk-rejected instead of two useless referee reports. The editor read the paper carefully and made helpful comments. 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. Would try again. 2 was more critical. interesting and polite reports. editor obviously read the paper (indicated by reference to appendix figure in the letter); nice and helpful comments. Helpful comments from the editor. Two useless reports for a paper that has been accepted by another journal of general interest. Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. Not to say, the shortcoming is an accepted norm till one finds a better way. Very bad experience. Was not notified by the decision through email, found the decision in manuscript central during a random check. referees appear to understand the area. 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. Extremely fast and helpful. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. Referees tough & somewhat demanding. Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports. Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Economics of Food Consumption and Distribution. Mathematics Jobs Wiki. Would try again in the future. 8 Days to get a desk reject. possible that the editor reviewed it himself, but was a fairly straightforward accept, trivial revisions only. Submission fee refund. 2nd very short and useless, referee probably spent 10 mins on it. Job Market. I suspect either grad students or people outside of the field. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. Crappy reports. Good experience! One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. We regularly reject without referees the majority of all papers submitted to the QJE. Wide disagreement among reviewers about paper, but one very helpful report. Meaningless reviews. Editor agreed with them. 3 months for a summary reject by the editor. Basically, just a short e-mail saying that it cannot be accepted and it is more suited to some other types of Journals. Well argued rejection with helpful comments. Referee rejected but with very exhaustive and interesting comments, only one report, but it was fair and can help me to improve the paper, Reports are thoughtful and useful for revisions, it took them 11 months to reject with one referee report of about half a page. Very good experience. Both referees recommended revise and resubmit but the editor came up with a nonsensical reason to reject the paper. 2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. One good report and the other mediocre. One referee was OK with almost no comments. Refs gave some okay minor comments but no big, subtantive critiques. Very quick response from Editor (Otrok) after revision. I wonder whether they actually read the document. Decent reports, rejecting for fair reasons. Hello! The referee completely misunderstood a *very* basic primary school model and then went on to criticize and complain about the empirical results. Had to withdraw after ten months of waiting. Referee comments were pretty minor. Editor reject due to relevance. Report very critical but useful nonetheless. The second round of review only took 3 weeks. Harold Cole was excellent as editor. Contribution not general enough suggests Review of Economics and Statistics. Paid $100 to read "that the Journal of Public Economics can only accept about 10 percent of the submissions for publication. Pretty helpful reports. Placement Officers: Pete Klenow 650-725-2620 klenow@stanford.edu. One positive and one negative. Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. One nice and one not nice referee. bad experience close call, got rejected Change of editor in charge during the process. Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. Sum up: Fast but not cool, Editor. Editor is a little slow. all in all four years without ever seeing a referee report. I am happy with the outcome. A lot of small nit-picky criticism and some factually wrong statements about paper. Surprised at how quickly all went. 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. Will submit here again. Might submit again, a little disappointed that they didn't try to get it reviewed. Suggested changes and several other outlets. Clearly the referee was someone not in the field of the paper (Asset Pricing). Very mixed report quality. Poor report! Quick response. It is a very demanding R&R and we revise the paper a lot according to the suggestions, but it is worthwhile. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. Except when I have coauthored with someone who is at an elite school, I've been desk rejected every time at QJE. Editor didn't read the paper. Poor targeting on my part. Efficient. superficial comment. Referee was perceptive and pointed out serious flaws in the first draft. Most inefficient handling ever. One guy who had no clue, the other who had good insight into our paper. Editor is very efficient and professional. Editor chose to follow the suggestion of the AE. Desk rejected after a week with no comments. Handling editor still rejects for unclear reasons; very frustrating, but at least fairly timely. One detailed report. took 7 months for 1 referee report, but the R&R was quick. Two weeks for a desk rejection. One fairly high-quality report, one not-so good. This? One associate editor recommended rejection and no other comments/suggestions, but one referee provided very useful comments and s/he seems to be positive about the paper(I post one row which has the wrong info on journal name, should be JPE rather than QJE). Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! The paper was a very good fit though. 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. 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. This journal probably saw better days but as of now it is really a joke. I don't disagree with decision, but too long for a relatively straight-forward empirical paper. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. Heard nothing and received no replies to my emails. Editor clearly read the paper. Readers familiar with the operation of the market can proceeddirectlytothe"data"subsectionbelow. One referee liked the paper but had doubts about the Y variable (kiss of death); other referee turned in a three page report but missed the point of the paper completely (while asking us to delete the explanation which would have answered his questions). Referee process could be streamlined (take too long), but overall a good experience. Desk reject within a 10 day but editor provided a short 'referee' report mentioning five issues. Single ref report had three very minor questions. Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines). The referees made good points. two weeks. One reviewer was ok after the first R&R. Overall good experience. Website | CV Fair reject with detailed reports. One month for the desk reject. Desk reject in 1 week. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. I guess I had the luck of being assigned to two business school types with absolutely no idea of the literature that my model belonged to. Very quick response. This was back when Bill Evans was editor. Quick response within three days. No way to check on status. very good and fair comments in a short time, Two good reports plus some comments from editor. Great experience. Editor mentioned additional points and suggested a field journal as an alternative. A stronger editor could have handled the submission more efficiently also pointing out the weakness of the 2nd report. Excellent Experience. Very quick response. Never again! They are also very slow! I contacted the journal about that but no response. I do not think that the referee understood my paper. 1 report, minor issues, rejected. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Terrible editor. However, it was relatively fast at least. Resubmitted within the same day. Weird editor pushing for a change in the results. THREE MONTHS! One week to accept. Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. On its face, the referee provided a good report, but once I dug into the details, it was clear he didn't understand my identification strategy. After more data were collected, the editor said "a referee suggested empirical work was not serious enough." Ref2 was not. 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. 1 good Referee and good Editor. Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. Both referees agreed and specifically pointed out that the manuscript should be published.
Wilmington California Crime,
News 12 Meteorologist Salary,
Articles E