Peace Officer Training, How Much Does Don Juan Make Kandi, Luxury Airbnb Scottsdale, Az, Articles E

Although my article had Nikkei 225 index in it they rejected it anyway! The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. Good reports. very good comments. Explains longish time to first review. Just a one-paragraph report saying that the results are not "novel". The referee also pretended that I did not develop a two-sided hypothesis (comment like "why didn't the author think of this? Reasonable response. At least they are faster than their reputation. Courteous notes from editor&co-editors when first response was delayed. One referee openly mentioned s/he doesnt like the method used in the paper. And because he could not find theoretical contributions. Coming off of a failed R&R at a higher ranked journal. Highly recommended. Not a good experience. Fair. Had a paper published there recently. Expected at least some referee reports but got a bad match editor-wise. Both reports are not really useful. Accepted after two rounds of revisions. Admittedly, they must receive a lot of submissions, but that does not excuse this. We give the editors one week to judge the overall contribution and if acceptable send your paper to an associate editor. At least turnaround time was fast: 14 days. Slow. Good reports. Didn't really get a clear sense from the negative reports why they rejected. 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. 6 months to first response, then a two sentence ref report, one sentence of which was clarified extremely quickly and one that entailed a ton of extra work. Worst experience with a paper submission ever. Katz rejected in less than 24 hours with some comments. And some more nice words. San Jose, CA. The second time I was told that my results were "not surprising". Contact: hyejin -dot- park -at . Overall, bad experience. The whole process was fast and streamlined. Letter from the editor not so much informative. Very fast and fair process, despite the negative outcome. One good referree report, one positive but unhelpful, one negative and entirely useless. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. Going through 15 months of the reviewing process. Avoid this shitty journal. The editor handling the paper had no idea about the literature. Disappointed it wasn't sent out for review, but can't fault them for speed! Long wait though. An extremely meager, short, embarassing, useless report. After about 1 year of wait, the editor decided to reject the submission on the basis of 1 report (2 referees did not respond) that contained only 2-3 lines that already work was done on the topic (although appreciating the empirical analysis). Happy with process. What would be a fair solution to racial reconcilation issues in the USA? The editor's comments were no less helpful and extensive as referees' reports. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. Very very good comments, referee was clearly very knowledgeable. Waste of time, Ok process, but referees either did not read the paper carefully or were inexpert in the field, Referee does not understand the purpose of the paper, clearly not a specialist of the field ; published elsewhere. Two good reports. 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda. 4 months for a desk rejection, frustratingly slow. Lazy report. The ME provided helpful comments on top of the two reviewers'. 2 poor quality reports after 8 months of being under review. Expected a bit better. The editor suggested an alternative outlet, which was where the paper eventually got published. Finance Job Rumors (489,470) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,758) Micro Job Rumors (15,233) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,523) Industry Rumors (40,348) Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. Minor changes, though. Decent reports, no complain. Very slow in responding inquiries. Happy with the whole process. However, I regret to say that it is a bit tangential to the main focus of our journal, and we are not able to offer publication". Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). Editor was our de facto 2nd referee. 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. Submitted in the covid special issue. Georgetown University - McDonough School of Business, Associate Professor or Assistant Professor, International Political Economy, Georgetown University McDonough School of Business, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, International Finance/Macro - Macroeconomics; Monetary, Chaudary (Chicago Booth); Chan (Stanford); Minni (LSE); Vats (Chicago Booth), Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Giacomo Lanzani (MIT), Jacob Moscona (MIT), Agathe Pernoud (Stanford), Rahul Singh (MIT), Daniela Vidart (UCSD/UConn), Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, Assistant Professor of Economics and Public Policy, Christensen (UIUC AP) Reimers (Northeastern AP) Kwon (Cornell) Newberry (UGA AP) Lee (Princeton) Serna (Wisconsin) He (Yale) Alba (Toronto) Yang (Duke) Weber (Yale) Craig (Yale) Rogers (UCSD), International Economics/Industrial Organization, Yajie Wang (University of Rochester), Hyunji Song (Texas A&M University), Yumeng Gu (University of California-Davis), Yes (1st round complete. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. Reasonably good experience; referee not overly experienced with topic. The top 20% of women are chasing the top 1% of men. Repeated enquiries ("hey, its been a year now") have been followed by profuse apologies. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. Very fast rounds with very insightful and reasonable referee reports and suggestions by the editor. Avoid that journal. Both refs postive but think the topic is not a good fit for the journal. 1 reviewer R&R, two reject. These advices do make the paper better. The editors are public health monkeys. Two referee reviews. The editor informed that she is a cross section econometrician and she did not understand our panel data paper. One year since submission, no replies to my queries shitty journal. Accepted after 3 R&R. Very professionalthe referee reports were fine but rather tough given the quality of the journal, 3 rounds, all comments addressed, rejected because 1 reviewer did not read the last version. Katz voted to reject. Bad experience with both the referee reports and the editor, Single RR, Editor said couldn't find a second reviewer. Fair enough. Fast R&R with reasonable reports and encouraging editor letter. The third one very general and less useful. Not belonging to the club implies rejection. Initial response for R&R was quite fast, but the second response after the resubmission took quite a long time, and it seems that the paper was just sitting at the editor's desk for more than a month before they were assigned back to the referees. Just stay away! Fair process overall. Very quick response from Larry Katz. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. This journal is a joke. Too us more than a month to revise and still had doubts. Got two most useless reports ever. I have no problem receiving a desk-reject, but the stated reasons show no understanding of our research. Submitted in 2014. It was very smooth. 48 hour DR, no particular comments from Shleifer except interesting paper, suggest AEJ:applied. Took a year for the paper to get accepted. oh they're good! Comments like "I do not understand the findings of this study" show that the journal is not what it used to be. Very fast reject and they sent my check back. Withdrew my paper after 8 months of no contact from Editor, referee, etc. Quick turnaround. Think I got lucky. ), Vienna University of Economics and Business, Ceccarelli (Zurich/Maastricht), Pitkjrvi (Aalto), Assistant Professor in Labor, Migration, and Racial Capitalism, Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario), Gallant (Toronto), Sullivan (Yale), Cui (UPenn), Choi (Wisconsin-Madison), Kahou (UBC), Hentall-MacCuish (UCL), Babalievsky (minnesota), Moszkowski (Harvard), Hong (Wisconsin-Madison), Pan (UT Austin), McCrary (UPenn), Gutierrez (University of Chicago), Kwon (Cornell), Zillessen (Oxford), Ba (UPenn), Assistant, Advanced Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor of Economics, E0 -- General F3 -- International Finance F4 -- Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Fin. One referee provided lots of helpful comments and even some ideas for future research. Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. Very respectless! Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Good comments, made the paper better. 2 minutes passed between receiving editor name an receiving desk rejection. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. 6 weeks for two reasonable referee reports. May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. Journal of International Money and Finance. The report was very entensive and it required a lot of extra work but it was insightful as well (however, as always, we had to compromise in some things we were not fully convinced the referee was right). In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. Extremly disappointing for a journal which claims to be the number one field journal. Terrible report. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. The associate editor however provided some useful comments which helped us improve the paper. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. 2 Weeks. Useful and encouraging comments from referees, who appeared very interested in improving the paper and offering helpful suggestions to do so. Will submit again. Reject with two referee reports, one gives constructive comments, one rejects with half a page report, saying the paper is not for a general readership. The other without serious suggestions. Relatively Quick Process. One good referee, one ok, one terrible. Very constructive and useful for revisions. Though the paper had been to several before so by the time it got to IRLE it was pretty polished. Thanks for quick decision. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Xavier Vives rejected the paper after 4 rounds and 2 years based on the recommendation of an incompetent referee who couldn't understand the paper and kept making bogus claims about errors in the analysis or interpretation in every round. I inquired a few times, and they responded promptly and politely, but sitting on a manuscript for a year is obviously unacceptable. "Thank you for your paper. 2 referees clearly read the paper and made some good and insightful comments. Comments are mainly about rephrasing implications and minor issues. fair comment. Excellent and clear communication with editors. We were authorized to hire 2 macro candidates, and we have now done so. Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud. Serious referee report, but without any helpful particular suggestion. Quick desk reject and no comments of substance (form letter) but no cost of submission. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. Waited 13 months to two mildly positive reports. Pleasant experience. Not even a single remotely useful comment. Process a bit slow. Do you really understand American history? 1 useless report, and second was useful report. 2.5 months to get a RR. He gave thoughtful comments about how to better target elsewhere. Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). Total turn around time was about 40 days. Got published after three rounds. 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. Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. Robert J. Barro desk rejected the paper in less than 24 hours. 2 referee reports: first one, r&r; second one, reject and resubmit. Smooth process, a bit too much work for this journal. 2 weeks. Useful reports. Suggested a top field journal! Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. Please post listings by subject area. Placements of Recent Economics Graduates. 14 months from submission to publication online. Two reports. Lots of minor standardized formating requests, then a gap of 10 weeks to get accepted. 1 report, minor issues, rejected. Journal of Economics and Finance Education. 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). Still got rejected. Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. One useless report, and one very useful report. ", Fast response. (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint). No comment from the editor,ridiculous journal. Seemed like a fair decision. If this journal wants to publish high quality papers, it needs to pick someone better than Joerg Baten who actually reads the papers before he accepts/rejects, etc. One very good report, the other OK. Clearly scanned the paper, deemed not general enough, and recommended other outlets. One rejected outright, one offered R&R. Very low quality report. Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines). HUMAN HELP: The Placement Chair for the 2022-2023 academic year is Professor Ben Handel, handel@berkeley.edu. Unacceptable waiting time. Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper, no longer a serious all purpose journal imho; "desk reject" after 6 mos on the basis of style in the abstract, Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded, One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end, Terrible experience. basic IV! Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. very thorough with helpful suggestions for revision. After that Editor took 2 months to answer positively to my R&R. Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Putea MatuaWellington - New Zealand, Assistant Director, Economics He clearly outlined the major flaws and decided to desk-reject it. That mean 5 people read my paper? From the abstract to the conclusion, we kept arguing like "A is not the main point, we should look at B." Editor seemed to have liked the paper despite ref rejection. Desk rejected after 40 days. Rubbish report ! Good experience. This journal probably saw better days but as of now it is really a joke. Can't complain with the decision and the entire process. The referees made good points. Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. Two reviews - one very positive, and one that was clearly from someone outside of the field that was not familiar with the methods or the literature. 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. Even though I debunked his claims every time, he was just coming up with new ones. One absolutely incompetent referee. 5 weeks to first response. Received desk rejection from one of the editors quoting results completely unrelated to my paper. 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. Although QJE may be one of the oldest professional journal of economics published in the English language, it is also stale. University of Sheffield. Considered waste of time here. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. Receive reports from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. Ok experience. 1 month + 10 days for desk rejection. Emailed journal to withdraw submission after 14 months. Fantastic experience. Nice experience. desk rejection in 2 weeks. Worst experience ever. Fair decision. Great experience - referee reports really helped improve the paper. Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. 5 days. The latter may be fine but it is clear that the referee did not read the paper very carefully. Would submit again. I am just not part of the club. Faster than I expected (3 months). The editor informed us that the contribution of the paper was not high enough for this journal although the topic has been examined in the past by other papers in this Journal. 3 weeks for a desk rejectand they keep the $100. One paragraph that dismissed four years of work. Editor sends paper just to his/her peers with predefined ideas. 1 report suggesting to cite the Editor's work and speaking about things outside of the scope of the paper. One was more helpful than the other. Also suggested 3 very good field Journal. Otherwise, efficient process, decent reports. Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. Not sure whether to classify this as a desk or referee reject. Young is defined by the year of the first publication in any form. However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. Very good and helpful referee reports even though it is a rejection. Desk rejection in 3 days. 2 reports minimal work, 1 report some work. Very quick response. Decision was made in 45 days. The journal originally sent me the referee's letter to the editor instead of the referee report - took almost a week to actually get the report. Would submit again. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. Pretty efficient turnaround. I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper. A grad student could do better! two years is a bit too long, especially given that it will take more than a year before the paper appears in the journal. No referee reports. Suggested a general interest journal. Also revisions handled quite efficiently! Arizona School Board rejects hiring teachers with Christian values: What is the best country currently to live in? Rapid desk reject - editor stated paper was rejected because of applied context (sports), Good reports, led to significantly better paper, Good experience, nice though critical editor, total time to acceptance 10 months. Brief comment from the editor. Very good referee reports and useful suggestions from the AE, 1 very good referee report, 1 completely useless. Desk reject after two weeks. When we chased, we received detailed referee reports and R&R quickly, but were given just 2 weeks to make massive changes to the paper - we withdrew and used comments to publish elsewhere.