They have officially adopted the policy of not giving reasons for desk rejections given the 75% desk rejection rate. Reject and resubmit. Burak Uras (Tilburg AP), Caitlin Hegarty (Michigan), Diana Sverdlin Lisker (MIT), Suzanna Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Garima Sharma (MIT), Ruozi Song (USC), Heitor Sandes Pellegrina (NYU Abu Dhabi), Juanma Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Katherine Stapleton (WB/Oxford), Dario Tortarolo (Berkeley), Jonah Rexer (Wharton), Anna Vitali (UCL), Livia Alfonsi (Berkeley), Binta Zahra Diop (Oxford), Shafaat Yar Khan (WB/Rochester), Althoff (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Vaidya (Northwestern), Chan (Stanford), Bodere (NYU), Pernoud (Stanford), Kang (Stanford GSB), Minni (LSE), Otero (Berkeley), Bodere (NYU), Vergara (Berkeley), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Carry (CREST), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Ospital (UCLA), Lanzani (MIT), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Kennedy (Berkeley), Souchier (Stanford). 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. This journal is a joke. Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit. It has been about 16 months now. One referee report was fine. Will not submit here again. 2 fairly helpful reports. Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. fair decision, Super quick desk rejection because paper uses archive data but isn't really econ hist, 6 months plus to first decision - then substantial time between R&R rounds, with pednatic comments which mostly wanted to remove the economics from the paper to the appendix. I declined the offer to resubmit. 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). Whole process super quick. Great experience. One excellent report, one mediocre report. No feedback and no useful suggestion in the rejection letter. I'm over the moon, great experience ! Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. Very efficient process. happy with outcome. Two referee reports. Reviewers gave substantive comments and significantly improved the paper. Excellent and clear communication with editors. Expected at least some referee reports but got a bad match editor-wise. Nice editor message. Not a good experience. Great experience. Ref reports of high quality, mention half a dozen suggestions for robustness which perhaps amounted to too much for the editor to let this go to revision. Terrible to treat junior people this way. "Referee report" Biggest joke on Earth!! However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. None of the criticism was fatal and most was stylistic. Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. Submitted a really cool COVID-19 theory and emperical paper. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. Very efficient process. R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. Editor didn't read the paper, based her decision on reports. The university is also very well-known for its intellectual atmosphere and abundance of creativ. Good reports. 2 months with almost no answer, although the journal claims desk rejections are within days. Poor quality reports. Poor / no justification for decision. Useful reports and fast turnaround. Desk rejected, one sentence given. So-so experience. Rejected on grounds of the paper not "establishing a new set of empirical facts that theory must confront" (Eric Leeper). Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. I thought that I deserved more respect. Full refund. Two referee reports, each was half a page with very general comments about the lack of contribution to a general readership. Nice reports. Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. Good experience. Overall good experience. withdrew the paper after contacting the journal twice. No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. Job Market. Development Economics, Family Economics, Gender Economics, Domestic Violence Durandard, Tho: Kellogg School of Management . Reports were not fair but at least fast response. I got the referee reports after 2.5 months from submission. Referee reports were modestly helpful, though there was very little overlap between what the referees commented on. Desk rejection by QJE does not convey the quality of the paper. Took altogether 8 months to acceptance. Only quibble is one referee got stuck on a (not applicable) approach and wouldn't let go. Desk rejected within 10 days. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. Great process, fortunate to make it past desk as LRM grad student, very helpful ref report received 8 days after submission. Submitted a taxation paper that was outside of their comfort zone. 2 reports and 2 rounds. Good editing process. Said the contribution was not enough for a JFE publication. His comments indicate he did not have an open arm to read introduction carefully to desk reject. One referee report was super helpful. Overall smooth process. The other one was less so. One report of 10 lines with one minor comment and the other one, longer but with also minor comments. While the paper was rejected the referee reports were in-depth and very helpful. Secondary: Applied Macroeconomics and International Economics. Desk rejection after three days. Only 1 report, but a fair assessment of the paper. EER to toilet, the editors are clueless. Very inefficient handling process. Received two referee reports and a review from the associate editor within two months of initial submission. Two and a half months for a desk reject for lack of fit. One referee clearly did not read the paper, while the other one did not understand the meaning of control variables. Comments were not really helpful. Editor (Voth) was polite but did not say much. One very good referee report that helps improve the quality of the paper. Contribution too small. Very efficient process, paper improved with referee comments. 0/10 would recommend. No flyouts yet. Paid $100 to read "that the Journal of Public Economics can only accept about 10 percent of the submissions for publication. Fast and very polite response. Overall, not bad experience. Very good experience. Editor and refs liked the topic but not the empirical strategy. PhD Program Administrator: Mirtha Cabello, cabello@bu.edu, (617) 353-4454. Home Help Search Welcome Guest. Job Market. Paper got desk rejected. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. Two days to desk reject, no comments, just boilerplate. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. Excellent comments from MN, good experience for a desk rejection. Nice editor. I submitted two papers and both took a very long time to get referee comments from and the sets of referee comments read like they were written by undergraduate students. First round took 2 months. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. Second report little use. Good experience. Total waste of time. Actually Journal of Economic Policy Reform. Very quick response from Larry Katz. Mean and non-sense comments from one referee so that the editor had to apologize. Bad experience. No comments about the paper itself. Nice experience despite a rejection. Editor did seem to have read the paper, possibly in more detail than the referee who comments several thing that was included in paper. Should have read the comments here about how badly run this journal is. Editor (Rogerson) makes some encouraging comments but cannot hide the fact that the referees were not really that enthusiastic about the paper, even if they couldn't find much to criticize. Two high quality reports. 5 months before the editor could take the time to look at the paper. Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. 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. 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. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. Will never submit unless the editor is changed to an economist, Referees did not put much efforts. Not easy - but straightforward. Submission to a special issue. Very efficient process with explicit timeline. Way too slow though. Paper desk rejected in 4 days. Do yourself a favor: if you have a journal that fits the topic of this journal, just submit it to JPopEcon, LE or the new Journal of Economics of Ageing. Contribution not general enough suggests Review of Economics and Statistics. 3 reports: 2 of them really good, one mediocre. In general, efficient journal, 2 months, 2 good reports & 1 trash report, fair outcome and ok process. (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Process ended after 1 report. Insightful and reasonable referee reports. Think about submitting again. Complete waste of time.. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), Reports not very helpful, paper not in journal scope. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. 3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal. Quick rejection. The referee reports were crap (minor points without really saying anything about the research question, the methodology and the results of the paper). Long and bad reviewing process. paper.? Average time between rounds of R&R (months), EJMR | Job Market | Candidates | Conferences | Journals | Night Mode | Privacy | Contact. Recommended a more specialized journal to try next. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. 3 months for desk reject with superficial comments is ridiculous. The contribution of the paper is not suficient for the EJ. Once that work was published, he finally accepted the paper. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. Editor couldn't find referees, rejected and claimed two reports but only one sent. Didn't let it go, Editor told him to "#"# off and published the paper anyway. This journal probably saw better days but as of now it is really a joke. Transfer from another Elsevier journal - additional round of R&R but easily satisfied and made the paper better. Amit Khandelwal desk rejected a RCT health paper in 2 days with no specific comment..no refund of submission fee, I do not belong to their club, Very quick turnaround (~4 days), encouraging response suggesting field journals. 2 very short reports after waiting 11 months and paying a crazy submission fee. but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. The second was more critical. Quick, polite desk rejection from Deming. Desk reject with generic letter at 3 weeks. I am making revisions. one so-so report and one excellent report, Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!! Very constructive and useful for revisions. One was a paragraph long and basically did a lit review. [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors is only lightly moderated and preserves posters' anonymity. All reports are positive. Other referee didn't have a clue. Two good referee reports, useful comments, theory; 2 decent referee reports and 1 suggestive letter from an editor. Referee seemed have little idea about the field or didn't read my 7 page paper. Very slow. Reminded several times and after waiting 1 year got one referee report. Mess with the submission, as they were changing editors. The referee report was very poor. Editor rejected on the basis of being too narrow. Good report. Received acceptance on the same day i resubmitted the paper. Reports have very clear constructive instructions and fast response. On this basis the paper is unsuitable for JAPE and the decision is to reject the paper. Competent referee reports, although one of them extremely hostile. Letter gives no mention of reasons for rejection and even unclear on paper's final status. great experience. Then why are we doing all this work?! Editor also gave very detailed description of the necessary changes. In reality, the paper is poorly motivated and the link between the model and the anecdotal evidence discussed in the introduction is not clear. Editors are not reading referee reports. Drill down into the main traffic drivers in each channel below. Nice comments and feedback from Associate Editor. Report was fair and helpful and editor's letter was kind. One referee suggests alternative data sources for robustness even though it took as a year to hand-collect the original data. JFM is bad! Very helpful reports. Desk rejected in two hours with a polite email that basically said "your methodology is wrong and your question is wrong." Editor obviously read the paper. Waste of time. Weak editor. They will not respond to editorial office inquiries or direct emails to the editors. Very good reports. Minor changes, though. One referee does not follow simple math, immediately assumes the model is wrong and the editor takes his side. It appears they don't like overly technical papers (it's an interdisciplinary journal so depends on who the editor is at the time - if not an economist, then avoid). Empty report. It is a pity it was rejected, but I appreciate the quick response. Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports. 19 Jul 2023. Editorial work was very fair - gave an R&R despite split reports. In a typical year, every MIT Economics PhD graduate finds a job. Submitted in the covid special issue. This Rumors site allows only a maximum of 12 months from submission to decision. Bruno Biais was AE. Same referee as for a previous submission to a high-ranked journal. After 12 months the paper was not even sent out to review or rejected despite 10 emails. One very good report, one OK. One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal. Should be careful to submit. Review process was very efficient. As we addressed all issues in between and it better fitted EL, it was accepted without revision. Desk reject in a week. Very good comments from both reviewers and the editor, Frank Sloan. Overall I feel paper rejected because of third negative review. One referee gave very constructive comments, but referenced three papers by same person (I'm guess that's who referee was). The referee suggested rejection, and the associate editor agreed. Suggested to send to another journal! Not a good fit. Rubbish report ! editor was nice enough to drop a page or so of precise and useful comments. Very satisfied with the experience. He made the most stupid argument to reject the paper. Referee process could be streamlined (take too long), but overall a good experience. It's the kind of disappointment that makes you stop caring about research. 1 positive and 1 negative report - Editor rejected. Disappointing as paper got some fine ref reports in another top journal and revised. Very good experience: I wish all my rejected submissions were as fast and polite. This is the letter I sent to the editor of JME: Laughable report (where do they find these clueless idiots?). 23 hours and 30 minutes after submission, desk reject from Shleifer. Both referees agreed and specifically pointed out that the manuscript should be published. The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. Emailed the editor at JPE for a brief explanation of why the paper was desk rejected so that I could improve it. A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. recommend ?that? Rejected by editor. One very good review, two quite missed points. I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. 5 months, disappointing experience. It took 7 months until the JORS provided two referee reports of poor quality (one refere suggested to replace GMM with FE regression because it is impossible to solve endogeneity completely). RAND prefers IO topic. All comments seem easy to answer. Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. Referee makes a factually inaccurate claim about previous research, and misinterprets interaction terms. Great process, fast and fair. One line "referee report". Editorial board apparently liked the paper, but found it not sufficiently related to population economics. Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. Definetely the referees liked the idea and wanted to improve paper's quality not to argue with its contribution. One very grumpy referee report. Expected a bit better. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. Good helpful report asking for few corrections. Extremely disappointed. Of these, 90 graduates (72%) chose positions at academic institutions and 38 graduates (27%) chose non-academic . Desk rejected in 1 week. One short and one longer report. Was a longshot. Most efficient experience with journals ever! 7 months for two very low quality reports. Very reputable journal with fast response policy which is good for authors: desk rejection in weeks, referee rejection in 2-3 months (usually). Job Market Candidates. The editor is very good with excellent referee reports. 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). Technical issues handled by non-experts. might be a once in a career event. Two reports. Reviewers did not understand anything. One very good referee report (I feel he has pubs in AER, JPE) and one useless report (he doesn't know anything about business economics). Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Disappointing turnaround for this journal. Edmans said he wanted RoF to be top 3. Took about 2.5-3 months for first response which detailed a lot of work - two R & R decisions, each of which took about 2 months for referees to get back on. Says model's too complex then suggests an addition which would have tripled the state space. One ref suggested I send it to JPE before trying places like EJ or ReStat. Submitted 4 February, rejected 29 December with 1 ok referee report that had been submitted in May. Fast response time. Nice experience. 1 was very low quality -- couple of bullet points that made clear reviewer had not read paper. I don't think he/she took a wee bit of pain to find out the context. Very low quality report. The second one is more critical and seems to be angry by the fact that I'm not citing his work. Almost one year later from submission, have no answer about my paper. I am currently studying the interaction between technological and demographic changes and the labor market. Very inefficient handling of the work. An Associate Editor clearly read the paper. Great experience. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. Referee failed to upload report. The latex formatting at the end was the most painful part. Reflects really poorly on the journal to keep this guy. 20 months to acceptance since first submission. Big fat load of help. Very happy with the process, definetly a favorite for future. 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit. Poor referee. It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Some feasible and some not feasible suggestions. 1 short report (but good points) and 1 very long report. it.?I? Reason for rejection was editor thought paper belonged in `less selective' journal. Overall, a very fair process. Good reports that were specific and helpful. After revise and resubmit, was rejected, Next year, similar article appeared in the journal authored by one of the associate editors. Editor was a bit harsh. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. . One good report, the other one poor. Appreciate the quick turnaround. Worst experience so far. It is run by "Kirk", [2] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. Long process. Bad experience, waste of money and time. Horrible experience. Suggested some other journals. Quick response within three days. Two referee reports, one good and constructive and the other so-so. Rejected with only 1 referee reports and after waiting 10 months! Got published after three rounds. Two entirely reasonable reports. Although the other referee was positive, editor rejected it. short straightforward paper, should take max 2 hours to read carefully,still under review, editor (Hall) non-responsive, waiting 30 months for response, editor not responding to inquiries. We'll see. Would try again. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. Very slow and no much reason given for desk rejection. Excellent and rapid process, with clear comments and instructions from referees and editor. One report very useful, and the other two not that much. Editor obviously read the paper and had great comments. One brief report. Desk-rejected after ten days. Great experience. R&R was helpful. 8 Days to get a desk reject. Editor decided to reject it. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. Editor Bruce Hollingsworth suggested an alternative journal. Some useful comments from his friend. Editor is bonkers, he said article was outside scope of journal.when it was clearly regiona/urban economics article. Two rounds of R&R. You received a high fee, you explain at least one sentence about your decision making. Charging for this should be a crime. Bradshaw AdvisoryLondon/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds - UK. But we are still hopeful. A UK guy handles my paper and give me a desk rejection after 3 months. Two horribly low quality reports. Editor desk rejected after a couple of weeks due to lack of fit. Kneller is a very good editor, the experience has been very good. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. Editors reject the paper. Contribution too small. Helpful and fair referee reports. game (can anyone confirm this?)? 4 months for a desk rejection based on what it appears to be a very superficial reading of the abstract. 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. only one report (quite helpful). Happy with process. I stopped reading after that). Worst experience I have ever had. great reviews and useful comments for ref, only 1 referee report 3 sentences long by reviewer who did not read the paper, Good reports but very slow to get a rejection. A year after submission without result? The response email was generic and brief, with no actual content or substance. Two years for such outcome. 2 referee reports. Letter from the editor not so much informative. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. Very Fast. possible that the editor reviewed it himself, but was a fairly straightforward accept, trivial revisions only. Also gave a lengthy extension. Tried to block publication in the second round as well but editor overrode. Good experience. Excellent referee reports, with useful input from the editor (Auerbach) regarding how to handle them. Joerg Baten seems to be literally an idiot making me wonder how he got picked. One very good report. 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. Turnaround times are reasonable though. Referee reports were very good, constructive and tough. Very pleased. All referee reports were gave entirely stylistic comments with no real grounds for rejection. The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. Polite letter from Bekaert. Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. Will never submit again to ER. It took the editor 3 months to write two paragraphs and reject. 3 months to R&R; 2 weeks for second round; 1 week for final acceptance. Overall good experience. Editor was Imran Rasul, extremely professional and competent. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. Went downstairs for some snack. Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. One ref gave R&R; the other two were rejections for not being of sufficient interest for AEJM. two weeks. Good communication and seemed very efficient. Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. -- Divided referee reports. 2 minutes passed between receiving editor name an receiving desk rejection. Excellent ref report. Rejection based on fit. Editor did not catch these oversights. Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one).
Red Star Wine Yeast Alcohol Tolerance,
Texas High School Basketball Team Rankings 2021,
Shop To Let West Yorkshire,
Coinflip Bitcoin Atm Daily Limit,
Why Is The Stephen Colbert Show Ending,
Articles E
