Editorial processes were very fast. The report was substantive and some comments were helpful, though there was only one of them. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). SVAT is a full service firm in the areas of bookkeeping, accounting, tax and small . One brief report. Very useful comments. Although other comments on this journal say that the review process is long, I had very different experience. Two straightforward reports calling for revision. DK carefully read and gave constructive feedback. Editor did not catch these oversights. Very efficient process. 1 Ref suggested R&R, Galasso decided to reject, Two referees, one useful and helpful, the other clearly not an expert in the field. 5 days. 1 very weak report, 1 very useful, AE's report extremely weak. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Second report little use. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. Desk rejected after more than 5 months, avoid, International Review of Applied Economics, receive first response within 2 weeks. Paid $100 to read "that the Journal of Public Economics can only accept about 10 percent of the submissions for publication. The whole process took about a little bit more than a year, which is very good. An extremely meager, short, embarassing, useless report. Editor was a bit harsh. Took 5 months in total, 2 reports, a paragraph each. awful reportreferee asked "why is this a problem?". One where the only material comment has a grammatical error that makes understanding it difficult? Top scholars if it comes to RCTs, but no broaded view. Associate editor rejected on poor grounds. It took 6 months a referee to look at the paper and decide that it does not make enough contribution to be published in this journal (very smart idea). Happy with process. fast desk rejection within 2 days. Overall good experience. One very low quality and unfriendly report. Strong and professional editors! The process was fair, with good pace. Good process (and none of the coauthors are from 02139). Unbased rejection after more than six months with mediocre reports and editorial justification. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". Probably just a grad student who could only understand calculations. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. Horrible! We were asked to collect additional data for our existing experimental treatments to increase our statistical power. Editor was really nice. Editor made some quick comments and recommended 3 journals a tier below. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. Note that the shorter the time span considered, the more likely the ranking is going to be spurious. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. Worst referee report ever. all in all four years without ever seeing a referee report. After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected. complimentary with some comments but said focus was too narrow, Good feedback from eitor, very quick desk reject. The most disgusting journal I have ever encountered. Economics Job Market Rumors. More than 16 weeks!! Says model's too complex then suggests an addition which would have tripled the state space. Reject and resubmit. Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. JFM is bad! Editor cites two but only sends one. Two days between handing in the revision and acceptance. Paper too good for their journal. End of story. There is only one report called review number 2! Unfair decision. In really sped things up. Editor uninterested. Great letter from Nezih G and two good referee reports. The editor did not even get that the comments were wrong. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. Three rounds. Sum up: Fast but not cool, Editor. Finished revision in 1 month and once resubmitted took them 2 weeks to accept. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. I am happy with the outcome. Good experience. The second editor rejected it. Larry suggested to send it to field journal. Absolutely disappointed by extremely poor response from the editor (Horioka). Best experience in my long career (20+ years, 10+ top publications). Comments like "I do not understand the findings of this study" show that the journal is not what it used to be. reviewer reports were okay, but the process took so long. Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. Standard rejection letter. UCLA Economics. Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. Decent experience; overall fast, fair and constructive. Note: previous desk rejected paper there was published in a much better journal. Despite perceptions they do desk reject. Editor also read the paper and took the call - explained that the paper was better suited at a good field journal given referee assessments of contribution to literature. Good reports overall. Bad experience with both the referee reports and the editor, Single RR, Editor said couldn't find a second reviewer. 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. Desk rejection based on lack of fit, altough there were at least 4 papers published on the same topic in previous years. 1 report suggesting to cite the Editor's work and speaking about things outside of the scope of the paper. Wilson inform me, on average, EI first decision is in 67 days, but my six months delay is not due to neglect (YEAH RIGHT! One was thoughtful report, pointed to at least one direction we can improve. After doing what the, very stupid, referee asked he said "not a big enough contribution". They never refunded my fee either. 8 Days to get a desk reject. The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. The status are always the same "under review". HUMAN HELP: The Placement Chair for the 2022-2023 academic year is Professor Ben Handel, email@example.com. 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. Editor was a little bit lazy as it took him two months after receiving the ref report to answer. After "awaiting referee selection" for 4 months, I sent a query and got one referee report. Economics Job Market Rumors Off Topic Technology. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. . paper is short so 6 months for each round is very long. very fast response and useful comments from a referee. Got a rejection within a couple of days without any constructive comment. Very bad experience as referee kept asking for more and more and finally said document was now too long and findings not interesting enough. Editor read the paper too and added some short comments. International Journal of Game Theory?(Springer). One report after 18 months. Very fast reject and they sent my check back. The saving grace is that it was fast. Professional editor. Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). Market Design; Organizational Economics; Personnel Economics; Race and Stratification in the Economy; Risks of Financial Institutions ; Urban Economics; . Reasonably good experience; referee not overly experienced with topic. This was the worst referee report ever. Shameless people. No regrets, Good reports, not extremely helpful, but good. Wish the outcome was different, but the turnaround time couldn't have been better. This guy really needs to not be a referee if he can not do a thorough job in actually reading paper. Multiple inquiries with a response: "once the reviews are completed, the editor will make a decision". Would submit again. Reasonable comments from referees. Fast turnover. Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. Very low quality report. The editor barely read the paper and decided to reject! Waste of time. Two month later it is rejected and get two referee reports (fair enough there). Good referees but long process: 3 rounds /16 months, Very hard to respond but comments significantly improved the paper, Took a long time, but referee reports were very useful and significantly improved the paper. Very quick route to getting useful reports. OK process, but some reports were useless. For three months the editor has not assigned referees! The process had only one negative side; the reviewers implicitly asked to cite their works. Only one semi-informative report. Good reasons for rejection; comments improved paper for next submission. Desk rejected thoughtelessly with curious comment paper read more like a book, 8 month desk reject with no reports--JPE is dead to me, desk rejected in a bit over a week, not clear who handled the paper. Very good referee reports. Overall good experience. Delays related to second reviewer. Terribly disappointing experience. WD has become a true shitshow. Referees did not show good knowledge of the subject. Desk reject in 7 days. 2 days from submission to desk rejection. $100 fee refunded. Formulaic letter. 3 polite reports say it is interesting but too simple for aer. Though nothing extremely deep, comments were of acceptable quality. Rejected by editor. Fast desk reject, no substantial comments. 10 days for desk rejection decision. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. Good experience, worth the 100$ :). High quality reports and useful comments from the editor. Bad process. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. Helpful and honest reviews. Friendly email from editor, interesting reports from referees. No refund. This journal provides a lot of details to track your paper (in total, we got 6 change of status), however, the whole process took almost 6 months but the referee reports were ready in less than 2 months (probably because they get paid since submission is USD250). Results not important enough to a broad audience. Although the suggested changes would have made the paper way too long for an EL pub. 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. R&R only one round; after submitting the revised version, only waited for six days until final acceptance. Transfer from another Elsevier journal - additional round of R&R but easily satisfied and made the paper better. All three schools are exceptional but UChicago is particularly strong in Econ as well as other core subjects such as polisci and philosophy. Referee clearly did not read paper closely because the bulk of his (limited) comments focused on why I don't address an issue that is addressed prominently in the introduction. Over half a year for response from one referee who a) had no problems with the methodology, b) liked the writing, and c) thought it had a novel contribution. Very good experience. He only mentioned that I failed to mention a lot of papers who were all by the same person. Good. 1 report (from different referees) each round. . Editor does not even both to check referee letter. All comments seem easy to answer. Job Market. Desk reject after 3 days. Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines). 2 years and counting, for a small paper. Editor picked reasonable comments, asked to take into account suggestions, accepted the paper after the referees agreed that what I did is reasonable. Would not hesitate to submit to this journal in the future. I've been around the block a few times, published in top 5, and most of my articles get cited considerably more than average for the journal. But editor rejects. Nothing that indicated they read the paper or even seriously considered it. He clearly outlined the major flaws and decided to desk-reject it. Rejection after 3 days. Desk reject after one month, no comments just standard letter, Quick rejection (12 days), with no comments on the paper, Rodrik rejected 10 days after submission, advised a field journal. Both read, understood and gave a few comments. Once that work was published, he finally accepted the paper. desk reject in 2.5 hrs? 2 weeks. Surprisingly efficient process given the other comments here on the journal. Contribution too small. Submitted July 2012, short empirical paper, still waiting for first response. Two referee reports, each was half a page with very general comments about the lack of contribution to a general readership. Strongly recommend this journal for health economists! Paper rejected based on the editor's phone conversation with the referee. Actually, 57 months in total. Had to withdraw after waiting for nearly a year and a half. Seems to be unfit the reviewing editor's preference but the handling editor was kind though. Lengthy, in-depth reports. Resulted in much better paper. Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). took the money. very good comments. Suggests a field journal. To be fair, some of the editors comments were sharp. 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. One paragraph that dismissed four years of work. Desk reject after 2 months. Both referees are bad at econometrics. The paper was not a good fit as it did not he approach does not engage the distinctive public choice literature. Very quick handling but refereeing quality just absurd. Although the referee comments were in detail some of them were really out of the scope. Not enough contribution. This is a wiki for tracking searches in various categories for academic (i.e. Turns out that means he's following the Schwert model: don't read the paper, regurgitate the reviewer's comments in the decision letter. Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. But the editor (Kunst) decided to "follow the referee's advice to reject your submission", even though there was no indication of such a recommendation in the RR. But I'm not in any club and not at an elite school (by choice). Encouraging words from editor, good experience. I got two rounds of R&R. Result not general enough for ECMA. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list. The worst experience I ever had in over 20 years. Liked the paper but contribution too small. Some helpful comments. Desk rejected in 14 days, just long enough to get hopes up, with boilerplate "not general interest.". Editor decided to reject because he could only find one person to review. 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. 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). The editor had read the paper and provided guidance. Took 3 rounds for editor to realize terrible referee was a crackpot. Useful reports. Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. The other report also helped in improving the paper. Considering withdrawing. Long wait but not a bad experience overall, referee comments were useful. Contacting the editor twice did not result in speeding up the process (but we received at least a reply). Response was less than two months from submission -- super quick. Two refereere reports and no comments from the editor on the reports. Referee misread the paper, and hammered us on points that we were not making. The third one very general and less useful. Baltagi desk rejected it in 2 days for being lack of novelty. They changed their system recently and the new system indicated that my paper had not been submitted so I waited 5 months for nothing. The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it. Bad journal. Within a week, Laura Schechter clearly went through the paper and give it a thought with a couple of helpfull comments. Could have desk rejected and saved us all the trouble. Both have suggestions (one extensive, one less so). Two referees. I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Good reports and no nitpicking on the revision. No comments, but very fast. Desk rejected in less than a week. I had much better experience in American Journal of Health Economics. One reviewer asking for minor revisions, the other clearly reject the paper. Good experience, even though a reject. Brief, ignorant, editor's letter. Still my favorite rejection of all time - used Shakespeare in a footnote, and first referee (whose English was subpar) said that the footnote was "very poorly written." contribution is not enough. Fast response time. One detailed report. Editor clearly asked some half-literate grad student to write a negative review. This journal is a joke. Quite slow response for a mid-tier journal. Contribution too small. Rejected due to data limitation. Awesome experience. Emailed journal to withdraw submission after 14 months. Six months to respond. Solid referee report and very quick response. To summarize, this reviewer apparently thought he had better English than Shakespeare. Good experience and good editorial team. Excellent editorial service from Bruno Biais. Unfortunately the paper is rejected but I hope the reports help you improve the paper for another journal. E. Two detailled and useful reports, one irrelevant. Would try again. He recommended me to send it to a more specialized field journal. 4 months with the editor before being sent to referees. Will not submit again. Very clubby journal. Outcome was positive in the end, but I had to follow some nonsense instructions from the referees and the editor. Fast and very polite response. Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper. Overall, good experience with IREF. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. Paper was a letter. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. The top traffic source to econjobrumors.com is Direct traffic, driving 56.39% of desktop visits last month, and Organic Search is the 2nd with 42.93% of traffic. Overall, bad experience. Two referees in the first round, good comments. I waited for seven months, only to receive one superficial referee report. The editor is incredible. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. Very quick response. A true scholar and a gentleman. Completely useless reports from referees/editor not know the methodology involved. The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. Do not waste your time with this journal. Will probably not be using this journal again. The negative one is essentially saying "it's not game theory so I don't care." Employers can provide information about their ongoing hiring processes for candidates on the job market. Suggested top field (JPubE in our case). Homepage; Still, I lost 7 months overall. Withdrew my paper after 8 months of no contact from Editor, referee, etc. SHAME on you. Extremely poor experience. $ 200 is high for an immediat desk rejection, editor was helpful in replying to inquiry regarding reason for desk rejection. I will try in the future. It seems like one of the reviewers do not even read my paper.The suggestions are nonsense. 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 submitted almost the same paper to another journal). A journal to avoid. Although paper is accepted, i would hardly deal with them in the future. Mark Watson was the editor. Positive comments from the editor. 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). Very smooth process. I dont care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. Not worth the time wasted. The comments are of bad quality and show poor knowledge of economics. Desk reject after few days with some useful suggestions. journal has a reputation for being out of the mainstream of econ. Highly recommended. Great process, fortunate to make it past desk as LRM grad student, very helpful ref report received 8 days after submission. fluent ?in? Recently Announced. Prof. Sushanta Mallick handles the paper. Excellent editorial work, with very clear road-map of how to address referee concerns. One good referree report, one positive but unhelpful, one negative and entirely useless. Editor acknowledge that it was a bad draw. Katz wrote his usual bs about my fascinating paper. Got rejection after 4 months. Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. Never deal with stupid journal anymore. Good experience! Constructive and very specific. Two reports -- one good (mostly cosmetic changes), one very short. Awfully slow. The latter may be fine but it is clear that the referee did not read the paper very carefully. All editors have lined up to publish their own papers (just see the forthcoming papers, 3 (three!!) 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. Desk rejected in 10 days because the editor wasn't a fan of the data. One referee reports is only 2 short paragraphs long and completely wrong. Job Market. Signaling. Answer (1 of 10): I would highly recommend UChicago for you. Other than that, the process was good. Very quick. Rejected within a few hours - unclear that associate editor had read the paper carefully, rather than just the limited 100 word abstract, since comments repeated points made within the paper. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. Referee cites one crucial assumption to kill the paper, but the paper does not make that assumption, and clearly explains it. Think one more time before sending here. I get it. Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. The editor suggested to try a more mainstream Public Finance journal (I think may paper could have fit Public Choice but fair enough I will try another Public Finance journal). I'm amazed. Also gave a lengthy extension. Until the 1970s, junior economics hiring was largely by word of mouth. Tough but fair ref reports that raise valid questions. At first the handling editor informed us that the paper is sent for peer review. 1 report from a senior researcher, who thinks that our paper is a fine exercise but suits field journal better. Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. Great feedback from editor, and semi-useful reviews. 1 reviewer R&R, two reject. Will submit again (other work, of course) on the basis of professionalism and treatment. Much better than overal reputation of journal. After that, the R&R only took 10 days and we also tackled a minor comment from the editor. One referee report---which is actually better than any report ever received with this paper (including those from RFS, JFQA, and MS). Not big enough contribution. Ex: CDF was derived to construct the likelihood of a discrete choice model, a reviewer writes the author does not use the derived CDF. Would surely submit to it again. editor(s) provided good comments too. Very good handling of the process. Dual submission to a conference, the submission fee is quite high. Not sure why we didn't get desk rejected. Fantastic journal. Fast response from the Editor. Hastily written by PhD student. Conley is a very nice Editor. Fast. 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. In-depth argumentation why there is no sufficient progress compared to common wisdom. Will never submit there again. 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. Rejected in 4 days, editor said work was done net resting but not broad enough. A bit long for a short paper, comments were fair and detailed although they pointed the way to an R&R rather than rejection. Good experience. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. After 10+ years in a research institution, counless submission, countless rejections, and some papers published in highly ranked journal, this was definitely my worst experience ever. Bradshaw AdvisoryLondon/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds - UK. Of these, 90 graduates (72%) chose positions at academic institutions and 38 graduates (27%) chose non-academic . 1 Referee provided useful comments that improved the paper. It took the referees / editor 5 months to look at my revised script to then just accept it without any further comments. Three weeks for a desk reject. Ultimately, Editor rejected as felt it was not general purpose enough. He suspects he could not understand a yota. Very useful suggestions by the editor who read the paper carefully. Good experience in general, the editor recommended a field journal. Contacted them, told me they will try to send it out to reviewers. Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Putea MatuaWellington - New Zealand, Assistant Director, Economics Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it. Long wait, decision was communicated with a delay of 3 months after reports had been received. My paper on the "The Impact of MTV's 16 and Pregnant on Teen Childbearing" was quickly accepted due to its relevance and awesome nature. After pressing four times, they told me it was out for review. Wayne State University (Economics) View all current job postings. Courteous notes from editor&co-editors when first response was delayed. Desk reject within a few days. Not sure I'll ever submit something to RED again. Helpful and doable things. Overall, not bad experience. Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. Secondary: Applied Macroeconomics and International Economics. Avoid if possible. The policy of the journal is to let each author appoint the referees, which improves speed on one hand but generates citation groups on the other hand. If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not). Website | CV Wasted 17 months. Resubmitted in 2 days, accepted after resubmission in 10 days. I don't disagree with decision, but too long for a relatively straight-forward empirical paper. Editing is a service and it is not mandatory. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject!