econ job market rumors wiki

Would submit here again. The editor Mark Taylor accepted the paper after one day of the last re-submission. Submitted a really cool COVID-19 theory and emperical paper. Two fantastic referee reports within 1.5 months. Mentioned but did not provide reports, just asked for a more policy oriented conclusion, unresponsive to emails. One report was an absolute travesty and surely had to be disregarded. One decent report. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. Fast editors. 2 years no reply, then short letter and reject, I would never send there again. for a desk reject with quite boring paragraphs from the editor along the lines why this is not using Angrist-Pischke methods One of the referee reports was very well informed. Disappointed. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). Pretty smooth process, with Eric Leeper being very kind and helpful. To avoid. A waste of 250$ and time. one so-so report and one excellent report, Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics. Editors reject the paper. One very low quality. Reject because aparently would not fit in their journal. Kneller is a very good editor, the experience has been very good. Coming off of a failed R&R at a higher ranked journal. Fair and useful comment by the editor. Fast desk reject but zero useful information. 2 fairly helpful reports. Extremely efficient process with good comments by referees. Very fast process. Referee told to write another paper instead. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. Fast and very polite response. Tough reports that required a lot of work but ultimately improved the paper significantly. very good and fair comments in a short time, Two good reports plus some comments from editor. The editor's comments are not informative. Seems safe to ignore the submission guideline: "In tables, please report standard errors in parentheses but do not use *s to report significance levels.". Nothing substantial to improve the paper. Reports were ok, but total process took way too long. took 5 months. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). Useless experience. Comments were not very helpful. Pointed out the problems in the model and also admitted that its difficult to take care of all those problems. Otherwise, efficient process, decent reports. One positive (R&R) and other two had valid concerns I could have clarified better ex-ante. Both reports made non-sense suggestions (not sure if read through), editor did not read the article. Two short referee reports straight to the point. The paper is not of the interest of SCW readers! there is no 2016 in the dropdown list. Cannot say the paper improved significantly, but it did not get worse either. Seems as though they did not like the content and were looking for an excuse to reject. 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. 2 weeks to desk reject. Two referees, two weak R&Rs, editor rejects despite the recommendations of referees. Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response. Very efficient process. I withdrew the manuscript and will never submit here again. On the downside, the time between each of the two rounds of R&R was longish. Paper denounced an error on widely cited paper (unfairly comparing bootstrap vs asypmtotic theory with a nonpivot statistic!). Second round--took less than a month to get 2 detailed second reports from referees--impressive! Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. No comments about the paper itself. Galor and the referees felt the contribution wasn't substantial enough. Great experience. Referees asked for useless extensions and took more than six months in each round. the ?author? With editor for 1.5 month. RAND prefers IO topic. Took 5 months in total, 2 reports, a paragraph each. One very good report, 6 pages long. Some comments from the editor, some are useful. Good comments from refs that really helped the paper. Awful experience. May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. The referee suggested rejection, and the associate editor agreed. Very good experience. Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. A forum for economists to discuss economics, economics jobs, conferences, journals and more. Editor was kindly respond my email after 6 months, informed me that referees did not respond even after emailing them. At this point, the editor asked us to review the abstract and the highlights. Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. In hindsight, submitted the paper too prematurely. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. Title: Researcher Location: COLOMBIA JEL Classifications:. Although QJE may be one of the oldest professional journal of economics published in the English language, it is also stale. bargaining? Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. One of the best run journals in macro. Submission fee refund. Even though my paper was rejected, they will be useful to improve the paper prior to resubmission to another journal. Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. In reality, the paper is poorly motivated and the link between the model and the anecdotal evidence discussed in the introduction is not clear. 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. Went from reject/resubmit to revise resubmit 1, revise resubmit 2, finally accepted. 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. It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. Although the paper got accepted, the quality of the comments and the editor's comments were beyond laughable and actually really make me regret having it sent there but it is too late. KS rejected based on AE's brief report; AE comments somewhat useful but a tad unfair (main criticism applies to many papers publ. The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it. Two very thin referee reports. Overall experience is good. Resubmitted in 2 days, accepted after resubmission in 10 days. 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. Incredibly fast review process, on this occasion. Came back within 4 hours, nice letter by Katz with suggestions of where to submit, 5 days for a desk reject. I wish my coauthors would not be too sad being rejected. Very good reports. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. Ok and efficient process - was told at one point that Chirs Pissarides had to approve acceptance our paper because of the subject matter, which seemed implausible. The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. After resubmitting, accepted in 2 weeks without going to referees. not a fair process. Very clubby journal. His reports were completely crap. Perhaps the worst experience ever. One furstrating assertion by the editor. One report after 18 months. Mean and non-sense comments from one referee so that the editor had to apologize. 48hr desk rejection with a weird comment from the editor; You did not address related marketing literature! JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending). SVAT is a full service firm in the areas of bookkeeping, accounting, tax and small . The second time I was told that my results were "not surprising". Good experience and good editorial team. Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! Formal letter in less than 10 days returning my manuscript. Search by name. Constructive and very specific. When pressed, editor said we weren't doing the same things as everyone else. Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. 1 very good referee reports, 1 mediocre, editor was nice. Contribution too small. 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". Good experience, Referees on the fence, rejection because editor does not like topic. After revise and resubmit, was rejected, Next year, similar article appeared in the journal authored by one of the associate editors. Detailed comments. Faster than I expected given horror stories i have heard here and elsewhere, and with good comments from refs and editor. complimentary with some comments but said focus was too narrow, Good feedback from eitor, very quick desk reject. Really improved the paper. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. Positive comments from the editor. Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. Both referees have good understanding of the topic. All in all it was a fair rejection and a good experience overall. Desk rejection based on lack of fit, altough there were at least 4 papers published on the same topic in previous years. The editor rejected based on flimsy reasons. Overall, fair process. Slow. There was supposed to be a third referee report that was not received, which may have been the reason for the time between submission to decision. I wish them luck. Accepted after two rounds. Very impressed with comments received by the co-editor (Mark Armstrong), which were more substantive than the reviewers. Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE. Editor also gave comments. Would submit again. Desk after 1 day from Katz, very polite and parsing of the paper, although not GI. Fast turn around with great referee reports that significantly improved the paper. Editor read the paper, added some comments of her own. Rejected by an Associate Editor, who actually read the paper, got the main idea clearly, and wrote a 2 full-page report with reasoning why this is not for JET and what journal outlets might be considered. Editor uninterested. I did what was asked, and the revised paper was accepted by the editor after one week. Suggested to submit to RSUE. After three months, I received an email from the editor that he still hasn't received the referee report, so he assumed the referee didn't like the paper and therefore he rejects it. Shame on you, AE. Very good journal, with reactive editorial assistant (Sabah Cavalo), and very good and constructive comments. Horrible experience! 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. Journal response was quick. The university is also very well-known for its intellectual atmosphere and abundance of creativ. Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. Brief comment from the editor. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. Single ref report had three very minor questions. Editor agreed. I agree with most of the comments, but the bar for publication was exceptionally high, considering his relatively low position in the journal ranking. Good reasons for rejection; comments improved paper for next submission. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. The paper was accepted after I incorporated all suggestions in R&R. very rigorous comments. Lengthy, in-depth reports. Main reason for this is that they assigned a different associate editor on the second round which I find highly unusual. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. This paper has just been accepted in a top transportation journal now. Single report. It took more than 2 months for desk reject. Rejected on grounds of the paper not "establishing a new set of empirical facts that theory must confront" (Eric Leeper). Brief, ignorant, editor's letter. editor did not read the paper carefully, waste of US$250. Desk reject took four days. One useful referee report and one that was not. Invites for 2nd round zoom interviews sent today. Reports were semi thorough and okay, appreciated the fairly quick response, The referees raised concerns that we were not able to see before, and they were fair. Advisors: Raquel Fernndez, Martin Rotemberg, Elena Manresa. 2 months for desk rejection is awkward. [2] [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors . Editor (Collins) might read the paper, but did not say much. One referee reports is only 2 short paragraphs long and completely wrong. No refund. One not very helpful/professional report. Bad experience. This is why our profession sucks. Terrible report. Referee #1 wrote 1 sentence saying to submit it to AER. Good ref reports. Editor wrote a few short comments. One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. Very fast process but no comment from the Associate Editor. Would choose again. In all the rejection was fair. 1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. All comments seem easy to answer. Very smooth process. Apparently the assigned coeditor left and paper got stuck. Economics Job Market Rumors. Bad experience. Split reports but very clear advice from editor. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. We may have been aiming too high. Clearly scanned the paper, deemed not general enough, and recommended other outlets. A very positive experience for a filler publication. Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. Very good reports that help us to improve the paper a lot. First response was very good (and positive), still there was a long waiting afterwards. one of the reports was literaly 3 sentences. Editor was really nice. 14 days to desk reject, worthless generic email that said nothing on why it was rejected, merely that they "get lots of papers. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. Both editor and referees liked the paper, comments from referees are on the point and constructive. a? Fast, bad luck with the editor who simply did not seem to see the point of the paper. Desk rejected after 40 days. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. Extensive reviews though. Avoid this shitty journal. One month for the desk reject. Three very constructive referee reports that help improving the quality of the paper. Some good comments from reviewers, but all focused on marginal issues. one positive, one negative report. One was a paragraph long and basically did a lit review. Useful reports. Poorly managed. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Reviewers gave substantive comments and significantly improved the paper. Editor did not add any comments. RR with major changes, then RR with minor changes, then accepted after 1 week. ref reports were to the point but could have been higher quality for amount of time under review, Two reports, one useful, one much less so. 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. Two referee reports. Referees obviously did not read the paper. After waiting for more than 5 months I got 0 Referee reports and a rejection based on very loose comments. Mark Watson was the editor. Overall great experience. Recommended to aim for field journals. 1 referee with small reasonable suggestions. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. fast desk rejection within 2 days. Quick first response with major r&r. AE recommended another journal. Not surprised to hear that the impact of the journal is going down. One very good report, the other OK. One weak report, one reviewer that clearly did not read the paper but did not like what he claimed we did and suggested we do other things which did make much less sense and one reviewer that gave comments that were pretty easy to address. Comical journal. Desk rejected within 7 days. Too slow. Pretty helpful reports. Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. Do not submit there. The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. Funny thing is Editor endorsed reviewer's response. 1 good report and 2 of low quality probably written by grad students. Good referee reports, very nice editor (Thomas Lange), International Journal of Production Economics. I assume he did not like the topic at the end. The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. Job Market. Conveyed no sense at all that anyone even looked at the paper. Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. 1 paragraph of superficial non-descriptive comments from each ref, One week to desk reject with no comment at all. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. Quick desk reject and no comments of substance (form letter) but no cost of submission. Very good experience. After waiting for 9 months, I sent an email to the editor asking about the paper status. Seems to be a fair process, 13 months for editor to desk reject because the paper has no empirical section, One good report, very constructive, the other one rejecting the paper. Journal: Utilities Policy (was not included as a journal to chose). Submission fee refund. Much faster than last experience with the journal, same result. Process ended after 1 report. Odd journal but overall pleased with the result if not every part of the process. Fantastic journal. Very good comments from both the reviewers and editors. The referee had a chip on their shoulder and the editor stepped in. One referee did read the paper, the other responded with odd arguments. Very clear referee report with constructive comments. 2 reviewers, 1 poor, 1 quite demanding and useful. Very useful reports, also doing some editing. Three weeks for a desk reject. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. Should be careful to submit. BTW if one of the referee goes for RR, I would have to wait for a third referee report (lucky me?). Rapid desk rejection, with fair comments and advice from editor. After more than 3 months of waiting, the paper was rejected with a one-sentence referee report. paper rejected after one round of R&R due to extremely negative attitude of the one referee. Gave a quick explanation and said they did a thorough read of the paper. useless report from "expert" regurgitating my explicitly stated caveats, B.E. Overall positive experience. Editor clearly read the paper. Serrano handled the manuscript. 2 referee reports: 1 so-so and 1 extremely shitty. Even though the outcome is positive, I blame the editor for not selecting competent enough referees to begin with. good referee reports (1 yes, 2 no). Reports are not great. paper.? Scam. Took 9 months for acceptance. 2 years and counting, for a small paper. Ridiculous. the website was hackedthe report was good, and the associate editor is very nice. Kicker: next day got an email to renew my CEA membership to be able to keep submitting to CJE! Mostly decent reports raising fair points, OK experience. Ultimately, Editor rejected as felt it was not general purpose enough. Fair decision. Dest rejected in three days. Other referee didn't have a clue. Form letter from the editor. Not very useful comments from any of them.

Dominique Dawes Parents, Henry Simmons And Mia Sully Split, Articles E