reports. Good experience, great turnaround. So not sure why the editor would say this is "fixable", unless he is trying to say it sucks in a nice way. good reports, great editor who replies promptly to queries. Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days. Tough revisions, but very fair. Super efficient handling by Prof. Sarte. However, they want to reject whatever you want. Fair editor. Excellent handling. Completely useless reports from referees/editor not know the methodology involved. Very impressed with comments received by the co-editor (Mark Armstrong), which were more substantive than the reviewers. Each report was one small paragraph long. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; . One good and two useless reports. Desk/ref rejected. Editor recommended field journal submission. 2 referee reports: first one, r&r; second one, reject and resubmit. Very good experience, competent referees and quick feedback after the resubmission. one so-so report and one excellent report, Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics. Comments were not very helpful. Very efficient process. solution? referees appear to understand the area. Expedient. Bad experience overall. 1 week: nice, but no fit with general interest. Editor agreed = reject. Comments were quite simple, I resubmitted after one month, and the editor accepted the paper after 40 days. And the whole process took us 8 months. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. Editor suggested that paper was better suited for JDE (LOL). Very good reports. No meaningful comments. And some more nice words. some useful comments, but clear that the referee didn't spend a lot of time on the paper, nor take much effort to follow bits of it that weren't conventional. April 16, 2022. It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. Very, very disappointed! For three months the editor has not assigned referees! Yep, it is. Bad experience. Rather uninformative feedback: feeling that it is not suitable for publication and unlikely to be favorably reviewed. Journal of International Money and Finance. Clearly the referee was someone not in the field of the paper (Asset Pricing). One extremely hostile report written by someone who is clearly trying to delay my results from coming out and another one paragraph report recommending minor revisions. Rejected afterwards. smooth in general. The Graduate School of Business at Columbia University is seeking to hire one or more tenure-track faculty members in the area of economics, including those in macroeconomics, open economy macroeconomics, or macroeconomic aspects of international trade, applied microeconomics, organizational economics, industrial organization, behavioral . Had to send several emails inquiring about the status. linking the paper with the "literature in the field", although we specifically say that our empirical application is novel to the field, so there are no comparable references. His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting Decision based on 1 one-paragraph review that didn't refer to anything specific in the paper. Not belonging to the club implies rejection. Fair decision. But the decision was unfair. Decision was made in 45 days. Massive work. Placement Director - Alessandro Pavan Email: alepavan@northwestern.edu. Desk rejected within 10 days. Reason - paper was too specialized. A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. Rubbish report ! Quick -- 3 days after editor was assigned. Editor rejected after two positive referee reports. Awesome experience. Excellent and rapid process, with clear comments and instructions from referees and editor. One crappy referee report, one useful referee report, one grad student referee report. Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. Desk reject within 1 day. At least they are faster than their reputation. Nice experience. Two very constructive reports. First two reports were "not general interest enough" and didn't have much to say substantively as a result (1-2 pages). Contribution too small. One referee reports is only 2 short paragraphs long and completely wrong. One referee report was fine. The referee seemed to be familiar with the broad topic of the special issue, but not with the specific subject the paper dealt with (e.g. Editor is very efficient and professional. Delays related to second reviewer. Very quick. University of Sheffield. Claudia Sahm - Wikipedia One referee report was super helpful. Answer in 24h. 5 weeks for a desk reject. Unbelievable! Comments dubious at best. After 7 months at the journal, I get one extremely low quality referee report. Just stay away! As best I can tell, the purpose is to use a particular modeling framework to illustrate that a trade policies defined in terms of 'import-export' quotas cannot yield a Nash equilibrium of the trade game. JFM is bad! Beyond the scope of the journal. Excellent referee reports, with useful input from the editor (Auerbach) regarding how to handle them. The referee reports were serious and offered some good suggestions, although one of the referees appeared not to understand the theoretical model used in the paper. Editor handled it well. He clearly outlined the major flaws and decided to desk-reject it. Quick response within three days. You have to earn it! Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. A drawback is that it takes time. Desk accept? After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. RR with major changes, then RR with minor changes, then accepted after 1 week. Chat (0) Conferences. Referee failed to upload report. 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. Finished revision in 1 month and once resubmitted took them 2 weeks to accept. 2 positive. Initial response slow, then extremely quick after R&R. The second time I was told that my results were "not surprising". Submission is waste of time. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a papers contribution. Avoid this journal. Expected at least some referee reports but got a bad match editor-wise. Title: Researcher Location: COLOMBIA JEL Classifications:. Two useless reports for a paper that has been accepted by another journal of general interest. Took way to long for three one page poor quality reports. Sounded like the referees couldn't let go off other papers' methodologies. The structure of the game, the policy and strategy spaces and other concepts are not introduced with sufficient clarity. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. Good comments from the editor. Editor sends paper just to his/her peers with predefined ideas. 3 weeks for a desk rejectand they keep the $100. It is frustrating to get rejected after convincing the referees. Reasonable decision. Horrible associate editor, Arkolakis, rejected based on his personal views. My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. From the comments it could have been an R&R, at least the referee and editor comments were helpful and will help to improve the paper, Though it is rejcted, I want to express my thankness to the refreee, who provdes a exremly high quality report. The other referee has no idea what I am doing. An associate editor left some comments, which showed that they read at least some of the paper. Fast and very polite response. One positive and one negative report. Co-editor felt nothing "wrong" with paper but does not made enough of a contribution to warrant publication. Our results didn't change. The referees loved it, very positive comments. Editor was Nielsen. Horrible experience! Fast and fair. Editor misunderstood the findings, complained didn't understand the Y variable (maybe ease up on the word limit then). 1 referree was critical, but offered great suggestions, other 2 were mediocre at best. The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. Note: previous desk rejected paper there was published in a much better journal. Waited about a month for the first decision, just a few days for the (very minor) revisions. 1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. The editor (Ravikumar) gave me an R&R with reasonable requirements. Fast, bad luck with the editor who simply did not seem to see the point of the paper. Useful reports and fast turnaround. 2 referees were positive throughout the process, one was an outright acceptance. Resulted in much better paper. Some comments from the editor, some are useful. Editor wrote a few short comments. Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions. 2-pages report, few suggestions. Sometimes Batten took a long time to make a decision after the reviews were completed, but he was fair. Professional editor. Not enough contribution. Fast. Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations, two reports, comments not always very clear on what was wanted but still helpful. One great, very helpful report; one report that made an honest effort, but wasn't useful; one report that was one paragraph long and littered with spelling mistakes. Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal. Very good referee reports and useful suggestions from the AE, 1 very good referee report, 1 completely useless. The current reality of the economics job market is this. Appreciate fast review and efficient process. Theory in one field sent to AE in another field doing empirics. is ?so ?poor? Editor decided to reject because he could only find one person to review. Editor clearly read the paper. my ?defense,? It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. Very kind letter from the editor. one referee suggested revision, one rejection, editor followed the rejection; good reports, suggestions improved the paper, Two revisions but rejected by editor, fast and fair comments, One accept with min comments, one said ok but many points/revisions, one reject, editor said too large a revision without guarantee for accept, 1 report recommended to publish, 1 pointed out minor points. one of the reports was literaly 3 sentences. Will never submit here again. The referees and the editor took ridic, Editor: Heckman; high quality reports, two of the reports were helpful and constructive. The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. Under two month for two reports. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. The editor Adonis Yatchew was very helpfull and efficient. Nice editor. they should have desk rejected, AE told me: you should not be surprised that IER typically does not appreciate this kind of work.. they wasted my time. Very good experience all around. Two referee reports. 4 months for ref. 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). Probably just a grad student who could only understand calculations. Second referee made some useful suggestions. We agreed with most of the comments. Ridiculous report by the most clueless referee who probably spend one hour only to read and review the paper altogether. One very good review, two quite missed points. 51 of 55 African countries snub Ukraine Economics Job Market Rumors Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. I am a macroeconomist specialized in economic growth and macro labor. If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not). Good editor. Smooth process. Editor then agreed. interesting and polite reports. Rejected because topic did not fit the journal. Receive reports from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. 2 weeks for desk reject. One is OK, other one is exteremly negative. Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. Will submit again. Some not so fair. Not a great experience. Reviewers made many incorrect comments and almost no useful comments, editor straight up said didn't read the paper, but reviewers are negative so reject. Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. But then, it took 20 weeks until we got the acceptance. Horrible experience. One ok report, one poor. Katz rejected my paper before I was done submitting it; suspect time travel. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal. Now Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. Despite disappointing turnout, reports were good with useful and specific suggestions on ways to improve the paper. My paper was much of empirical. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Two referee reports. took the money. Health economics, Applied . Editor rejected. Rather pleasant experience. It took them 13 months to tell us that the article was better suitable for a different journal, Generic Desk Reject - Fortunately they only took 2 days. 2 constructive reports that improve the paper after 2 months. overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness. Editor didn't waste any time on accepting after first revision. Placements of Recent Economics Graduates. Poor / no justification for decision. helpful comments; quick process; good experience. Two weeks desk reject. Not recommended. 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. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. It was almost like somebody pickpocketed and got my $600, had to pay $100 instead of the usual submission fee. No comments on the reason for rejection was given. The reviewer was excellent, made the paper much better with his/her comments. 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). "The empirical econometric novelty of the paper is not substantial enough ", Desk rejection within five days / Poor allocation of coordinating editor (microeconometrician for a time series paper), Quick desk rejection after manuscript ID was assigned. Larry suggested to send it to field journal. Helpful reports in general. We believe this policy serves contributors who are saved months of unnecessary delays. Good experience, even my paper was rejected. Poor experience, will not submit again. Overall very good experience. The AE finally conceded that I was right and the referee was wrong - but decided to reject the paper anyway! Great editor who was great at handling the process and chasing referees. Job Market. Terrible screening process at this journal. Long reports with some good comments. Overall efficient and fair but demanding process. At least response in 1.5 month. Fast desk reject, no substantial comments. One extremely useful and one useless report. Rejected for not general interest, brief comments by editor and a "finance scholar". Will never submit unless the editor is changed to an economist, Referees did not put much efforts. Avoid at all costs.. Proved to be quite true. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. Articles/sites of interest for students on the Job Market. The other referee was concerned about the limitations of the identification strategy, but the same strategy has been used in other studies (some are in top field journals). Fair and quick process. Desk rejected in two hours with a polite email that basically said "your methodology is wrong and your question is wrong." The rejection was fair but the referee report uninformative and boilerplate. Recommended to aim for field journals. The two anonymous referees were surely competent even though they did not go in depth as the editor did. Good experience. A really good experience and really fast. Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor. Very long time for first response. Finance Job Rumors (489,527) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,815) Micro Job Rumors (15,246) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,029) China Job Market (103,535) Industry Rumors (40,351) Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. His own comments were not based on the reports. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. Super fast handling by Pro. It seems like one of the reviewers do not even read my paper.The suggestions are nonsense. Overall, not bad experience. EconJobRumors.com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is a website for academic economists. OK process, but some reports were useless. Will definitely send again. I really appreciated the clarity the editor provided in helping to navigate the referee reports. I thought that I deserved more respect. Referees' comments were useful. Perhaps we can call JABO an experimental journal now. Excellent editor, balanced referees and good timing. The editor, one AE and some referees (in the first stage there was only one, completely irrelevant) have insulted my intelligence.
Kirklees Emergency Repairs Number, Christopher Scott Son Of Randolph Scott, Articles E