It is run by "Kirk", [1] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. No letter from an Associate Editor, so no idea about who rejected the paper. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. 8 months after submission, an in-depth and articulated referee report with many comments. We regularly reject without referees the majority of all papers submitted to the QJE. This journal is a bit hell to make it attractive to authors in order to get their money easily. The second editor rejected it. Resubmitted in 2 days, accepted after resubmission in 10 days. Two entirely reasonable reports. I suspect a tight club. AER:Insights - Larry Samuelson, Very polite, slightly more than standard rejection letter, saying - not a good fit, although enjoyable. It's the kind of disappointment that makes you stop caring about research. One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. From the abstract to the conclusion, we kept arguing like "A is not the main point, we should look at B." Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. Not sure I'll ever submit something to RED again. Not recommended. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. plus for a quick turnaround. 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"). Paper was internally valid-(ish) but not a big enough contribution. Editor (Reis) worked hard on paper to make it better. Outcome was positive in the end, but I had to follow some nonsense instructions from the referees and the editor. At the time the editor had still the paper sitting on his desk. One referee, although clearly in favour of publication, asked a good deal of revisions and it took us 4 motnhs to respond so most of the delay may have been our fault. Nothing in the email suggested that anyone had actually read the paper. Some useful comments from his friend. Poor, self serving. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. Revision took about 1 week, one of the reviewers requested additional data/info about the methods used. No comment from the editor,ridiculous journal. 2 weeks. We have no new methodology because, when tried, the data suggest traditional fits better: not interesting enough for RSUE. It is a very demanding R&R and we revise the paper a lot according to the suggestions, but it is worthwhile. I get it. Two referee reports, one critical, one encouraging. Hello! The paper was with the journal for five months and we got a rejection with only one referee report with 5 bullet points (two of which were about typos). One single bad report. Receive desk rejection in 24 hours, editor read the paper and suggested to top field journal. Rejected in 4 days, editor said work was done net resting but not broad enough. Ever. Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. A stronger editor could have handled the submission more efficiently also pointing out the weakness of the 2nd report. 6 months was a lot to wait for one good report though Good feedback. Very quick response from Editor (Otrok) after revision. Referee said he just didn't like the paper. Costas Meghir was editor. Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. Super fast handling by Pro. That is not cool. And some more nice words. Good reports that were specific and helpful. Constructive and helpful comments from the co-editor. We saw no referee report and only had to deal with editor comments/suggestions. Referee reports were of high quality. Rejection without arguments/referee report. Two weeks desk reject. It took them 10 months to say anything and at the end even though the referees asked for revisions and were positive the editor rejected the paper. A year after submission without result? Your paper is not fit for public choice try with public economics. Economics Job Market Rumors. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. That was also a very fast and good experience, though not the outcome I had hoped. European Review of Agricultural Economics. Highly recommended. 2.5 are very positive. 2 weeks for desk rejection. No comments from Katz except go to field journal. They will not respond to editorial office inquiries or direct emails to the editors. recommended Journal of Development Economics. Good experience overall. Apparently is unaware of large literature in multiple fields to which topic pertains. Desk rejected after more than 6 months without any review or comments. Harold Cole was excellent as editor. HUMAN HELP: The Placement Chair for the 2022-2023 academic year is Professor Ben Handel, handel@berkeley.edu. Extremely long wait at this journal for comments. After 7 months at the journal, I get one extremely low quality referee report. Thorough review. The first round took too long (~10 months). I have no clue who the referee wanted to impress, maybe the editor? Helpful editor. One very good referee report, based on which the paper is improved significantly. Very fast. Fair points raised, although I would have preferred a R&R naturally. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. One positive review, one negative, referee took the side of the negative. Editor clearly read the paper. Note that since the editor(Batten) is handling many different journals at the same time, you should expect relatively slow turnaround time. Rejection reason shows Meghir did not read the paper, bad editor dull comments. had to withdraw, Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. Eight months is a long wait though. At least it was fast. Desk rejected in two weeks. Submission refund. Good experience. Came back with a reject, but reports were at least somewhat useful. 1 on the fence. Journal. Reasonable response. They raised concerns that very literally addressed in section heads. Reports were split. Just one very low quality report. In the first three, the referees took 3 months and tehn 9 months to take care of comments. Helpful and doable things. Rejected on pretty poor grounds by an associate editor. Useful comments from the editor who had to stand in for the unresponsive second referee. Long process. Bad experience, there was a long wait of mroe than 10 months to get 2 referee reports that did not like the the paper (but not so sure why). reports, the reports were all nice an constructive. Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. I sent an email after 5 months of submission and another after 6 months. Finance Job Rumors (489,418) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,722) Micro Job Rumors (15,231) Macro Job Rumors (9,801) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,526) Industry Rumors (40,345) If you don't like my paper then desk reject the first time, and don't ask me to resubmit! two years is a bit too long, especially given that it will take more than a year before the paper appears in the journal. Rather short reports for waiting 6 months. The second one is more critical and seems to be angry by the fact that I'm not citing his work. It was quick. Very nice words from the editor but useless referee reports. First experience with this journal. It seems like one of the reviewers do not even read my paper.The suggestions are nonsense. That mean 5 people read my paper? Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. all in all, a costly but friendly and competent experience. Editor sends paper just to his/her peers with predefined ideas. Incredible experience: referee said he/she didn't like the paper. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. Fair editor. Great experience. After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. Very short and no relevant comments. After the second round R&R, I only had to deal with the long reviewer. Letters from the Editor was nice. A UK guy handles my paper and give me a desk rejection after 3 months. It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. Editor was very reasonable. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, O. Very bad experience. Good experience. Francis Breedon is an efficient editor. The referee is clearly not up to the task. Fields: Applied Microeconomics, Labor Economics, Quantitative Macroeconomics, Development. There was a second round of ref. My impression is that the editor didn't even bother looking at the paper. Asim I. Khwaja editor, Two out of three referee reports were good one was much less. Professional editor. Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. Good experience, Referees on the fence, rejection because editor does not like topic. Good experiences --- fast (1 month for both the first and R&R round), good reports, editor is also very helpful. Very good reports. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. Do not waste your time with this journal. Tough revisions, but very fair. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. An extremely meager, short, embarassing, useless report. Resubmitted and the editor rejected the paper on the basis of concerns that were never raised before in the process (and are incorrect IMHO). 1 positive but short & useless, 1 incompetent negative who didn't even understand the historical topic. The IJIO has a rapid review process. Two weeks for a desk rejection. Though reports with constructive comments, Tough and fair refereeing. EJM - Econ Job Market Took 5 months in total, 2 reports, a paragraph each. Mathematics Jobs Wiki - NotableMathWiki - UC Davis Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. Explains longish time to first review. Yep, it is. 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. good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. One referee report after 11 months. accepted immediately after minor revision. One short and one longer report. Editor suggested alternative outlets. Pretty good experience. bargaining? 1 very weak report, 1 very useful, AE's report extremely weak. Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. Comments from Larry very helpful. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. The editor read the paper and provided useful advice on how to improve it. 1.5 weeks overall, Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics. Seemed like he carefully considered the paper. the referee report adds nothing, and the editor rejects based on the meaningless report. Lengthy, in-depth reports. Great experience. Finally, I have now wothdrawn my paper. Not a good fit. Terrible referee report referee made contradictory statements and econometric mistakes in report. Overall good experience. Not a fit to the journal! Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. Referee was constructive and provided helpful comments. Ph.D. Editor claimed that referee is an expert in the field. Both referees caught the major issue in the paper and offered great suggestions for moving forward. They said they could not find reviewers. Seems like being rejected in virtue of the magnificence of the journal. Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). Overall an excellent experience. Very polite desk rejection. Never would have won that person over. Editor provided useful feedback and a subsequent version of the manuscript was sent out for peer review. Still not a fan of this journal. Initially submitted on 2 Aug, we got the rejection six month later. They like the paper but the contribution not enough for Econometrica. Very efficient indeed!!!!!!! The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress. extremely long wait, and a really poor referee report. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. Some fair some unwarranted comments. No complains. One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. However, once the paper was assigned to referees, the speed was normal. I want my money back ! Editor provided some friendly comments. After "awaiting referee selection" for 4 months, I sent a query and got one referee report. One referee report was very good; the second was also modestly helpful. Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. Two reports were reasonable and one report was very low quality. After careful consideration, the JAPE editorial team considers the paper is largely a statistics exercise. The referee's main criticism was like "they argued that A is the main point, which is weak. Referee seemed have read just the abstract. A reviewer gave some thoughtful comments. basic IV! Getting a reference to AEJ Applied was worth it. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. "Scope a bit too narrow" for Economica. Great comments from editors and referees. Based on the comments of one more referee with few points, he rejects. AE rejected without commenting on referee report, At least a quick report with one good comment that can help to improve the paper, but with the other points highlighted by the referee were discussed in the paper. Fast R&R with reasonable reports and encouraging editor letter. Editor agreed to R&R and suggested major changes but then didn't like the resulting paper. One decent and one sloppy report, 1 good report, 1 bad one, decent turnaround time. The contribution of the paper as it stands to be insu cient for publication in The Econometrics Journal. The first response took more than I expected, but the referee's comment was very constructive. Will never submit again. The best rejection letter ever received. Horrible experience, late response, useless report. One referee kept claiming one thing was wrong. Job Market. 2 constructive reports that improve the paper after 2 months. In May 2016 the editor promised a decision within a days. Bruno Biais was AE. Horrible editorial process. Four RR rounds. Encouraging words from editor, good experience. Seemed like a very long time to only receive one referee report. The editor rejected based on flimsy reasons. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. EM suggested transfer to a different journal (which desk rejected after 2 hours). Revise and Resubmit. Editor took two weeks to unconditionally accept. Economics Journal Submission Wiki | Economics Job Market Rumors R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. The first note of the referee claimed that I didn't do something I clearly did. Referee comments generally useful and positive, but guest editor made desicsion to reject given preferences - fair enough really. They also indicated that the paper was better suited to a a different journal. Co-editor and one referee attacked the paper for something that the paper already explicitly adresses. Reject and resubmit. The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. Second ref put thought into it but was of a heterodox stripe that I'm not. Pretty fast, 1 high quailty report. Very Fast. Got two negative referee reports, where one in very useful, and the other is moderately so. Fast editors. Then why are we doing all this work?! No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. Search by name. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. 2 reviewers, 1 poor, 1 quite demanding and useful. 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. Tyranny of the single review. One detailed report. Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. Resubmitted and then conditional accepted within a week. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. Revise and resubmit. Editor provided quick and fair comments why the paper is not suitable for the journal. Editor couldn't find referees, rejected and claimed two reports but only one sent. Detailed reports, 2 negative, 1 positive; nice letter from co-editor. The editor barely read the paper and decided to just reject it At least it was quick response - 11 days. Roald Dahl ebooks 'force censored versions on readers' despite backlash It just decided not to believe the empirical analysis. For the steep fee would have been appropriate if editor had written a few sentences about why they rejected. Third report seemed written by a sage speaking in amharic, most statements were elliptical in nature, and we were left wondering what the referee's point had been. Overall very good experience. Super standard rejection letter from Olivier Coibion, no advice whatsoever Two months to a desk reject, with zero information from the editor's response. Do not submit to this journal. Very happy LRM made it past desk. Great outcome. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. Desk rejection by QJE does not convey the quality of the paper. Job Market. One was favorable, the other was on the fence. Some of the people at my lower Really unprofessional. not the fastest experience, but high quality comments from referees and the editor who liked the paper. 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. Editor referred to a report by a reviewer received by phone. Giles is a great editor. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. The AEA provides a guide to the job market process created by John Cawley. not a fair process. Emailed every six months never to any response. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Very efficient. One very good report, 6 pages long. One is a R&R type, and the other referee said that he was not interested in the topic, nothing about the details of the paper. 10 days for desk reject. Both have suggestions (one extensive, one less so). Seems the process is very efficient with the new editorial board, Fantastic experience: fast and very good comments. major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). Editor handled it well. Horrible process. Clearly there were 2 initial refs: 1 suggested R&R, the other suggested rejection. Very fast, and really high-quality referee reports, plus the AE's feedback. 3 polite reports say it is interesting but too simple for aer. Letter by Concerned Economists Regarding "Contracting for Sex in the Charging for this should be a crime. cooperative? Bad experience. The editor read the paper carefully and made helpful comments. Rejected with 2 reviews on the grounds of insufficient contribution to literature. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. I'm amazed. Desk reject in one week, some good comments from editor. Focus too narrow for a general interest journal. 23 hours and 30 minutes after submission, desk reject from Shleifer. the other report is empty (rejection). one week to accepted with minor changes. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO) I don't know what to add. Desk reject after few days with some useful suggestions. Helpful for resubmission somewhere else. One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. Almost one year later from submission, have no answer about my paper. One very low quality. The other referee was of low quality. 3rd review was pending. 48hr desk rejection with a weird comment from the editor; You did not address related marketing literature! rejected after 2 rounds of revisions. EJM - Econ Job Market The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. Advisors: Raquel Fernndez, Martin Rotemberg, Elena Manresa. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. Recommend. Whole process super quick. Fast. Really good advice from journal editor and 2 good reports. AVOID it. Reasonable motivations for desk rejection provided, Fast desk rejection, poor targeting on my part, desk reject but with useful feedback from AE. Total turn around time was about 40 days. AE recommended other journals. 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. Very fast decisions. While the ref rejection runied my day, I must conclude that the process was very efficient and the editors/refs earned every penny of the submission fee based on the feedback I received. I expected better from this journal. I sent off the revision less than 24 hours after the R&R. One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. Slow moving. Awesome experience. At first the handling editor informed us that the paper is sent for peer review. One decent report. would? I am not in a club, whatever it is.). Very slow and the reason for rejection was not good enough. 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. Surprisingly, she had one-page long useful comments, which helped improve the paper. The other reviewer raised some minor issues. Good experience overall, only took 2 weeks, two short reports, one very useful. One very grumpy referee report. Horrible experience. In hindsight, submitted the paper too prematurely. Rejected a letter with one referee report but overall experience was good: about 6 weeks, comments sensible will try to implement. Recommended. If you don't have that - expect to be desk rejected. highly unprofessional, the report is not useful, comments make little sense and contradict to the extant literature on the topic. Desk reject in one day. Very efficient process. game (can anyone confirm this?)? All in all it was a fair rejection and a good experience overall. Said they would refund the submission fee, which is nice. Editor's letter mentioned a 2-1 split in favor of rejection, so she rejected. ", Fast response. It seems that the last guy didn't read the paper carefully and I wonder how it could take 4month to write such a poor report. 2 good reports, clearly improved the paper. Recommended field journals Clueless editor thinks results are of narrow interest. Recommended field journals. Relatively Quick Process. Horner is a disaster! Transfer from another Elsevier journal - additional round of R&R but easily satisfied and made the paper better. The paper was accepted after one round of submission. The editor agrees with the latter statement but adds "unless it's great. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. Pretty smooth process, with Eric Leeper being very kind and helpful. One report was very constructive and helped improve the qualitiy of the paper. Two weeks for R&R. Worst experience ever. Job Market. Would not bother again. Worst referee report ever with unsubstantiated claims. Fast turn around. After revision, paper accepted in a week. The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. 2 Reports. The least the editor could have done is to assign another editor. Not a great experience. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Sent it to EL on Christmas Eve, got the desk reject from Gomez right after Christmas on 26th for not enough contributions. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. Failed to notify me of rejection. It took 4 months to get the reviews, but the reviews were excellent. Surprised at how quickly all went. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. Tough but receptive referees. Suggested Ecological Economics. Smooth process. Editor admitted haven't read the paper. Quick rejection (Canova, 5 days), professional, very acceptable decision. This journal is a joke. Economics Job Market Rumors. Conveyed no sense at all that anyone even looked at the paper. Very quick process. Waste of submission fee. Editor took issue with a methodological aspect of the paper and rejected. totally useless editor. Thanks Amy! Absolutely idiotic low-quality comments. Ali Kutan is the associate editor, finally accepted the paper. Absolutely pathetic. One told me I should have use the methodology introduced by XPTO et al, which was the one I used and cited Only worthy comment was the editors who stated (and rightly so) that though our model statistically improved forecasts. The reason was that the, Andrew Samwick rejected within 2 days, Topic is too speacialized for EL.
Iowa Football Posters, Erin Gilbert Missing David Combs, Standish Chaos Report 2020 Pdf, Hermione Is Adopted By The Avengers Fanfiction, Angelo Pietro Sesame Miso Dressing Recipe, Articles E