Weak editor. Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). Referee did clearly said that the main mechanism is not compelling but did not give a single word on why our argument is persuasive or what else we could do to improve. Welcome to the Mathematics Jobs Wiki 2021-2022 research positions page. Fantastic experience (accepted first round), Directly accepted within one month. Disappointing. Would definitely submit here again. Never submit again. Two ref reports in 8 days. Expected better from an AEJ. fluent ?in? Paper was accepted two days later. After 6 months I got an extremely low quality report; looked like the reviewer had no idea about the paper or even the field in general. Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. Kicker: next day got an email to renew my CEA membership to be able to keep submitting to CJE! Two very good reports, one probably written by the editor. Smooth process, a bit too much work for this journal. After waiting for 9 months, I sent an email to the editor asking about the paper status. Desk rejected but the co-editor read the manuscript carefully and gave substantive comments. Editor Ian Walker gave us a fantastic referee report. Mentioned but did not provide reports, just asked for a more policy oriented conclusion, unresponsive to emails. Faster than I expected (3 months). Stay away! Comments from Larry very helpful. Referee reports were on the shrt side, but competent and polite, unfrtunately I doubt that the comments received will help improving the paper. Bad experience with both the referee reports and the editor, Single RR, Editor said couldn't find a second reviewer. Useful comments from the editor (Stefan Nagel). Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic. I received my Ph.D. degree at the University of Chicago in 2022. Good report from reviewers. Desk rejected within 10 days because the topic was not fit to the journal (it may have been a reasonable response given the topic). Totally automated review process; one referee carps even with demonstrably invalid reason and you have no right even to contact the editor. Got most thorough, informed, and useful referee reports in 5 years. Reasonable comments from referees. Only one referee report in 11 months? 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. Ridiculous experience. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. Assistant Professor of Economics Columbia University Visiting Research Associate (2022-23) BFI at the University of Chicago Research Network Affiliate CESifo Network Links: Cognition and Decision Lab DRIPs Curriculum Vitae Google Scholar Contact: [email protected] . This was high risk but of course at the end worth it because it is a good journal. Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it. Brief comments from the editor. Saying that the topic is not general enough. Held my paper for a full year and rejected it on a split decision with one ref suggesting an RR and the other a reject. Simply put, the reviewer does not believe in my results (simulations from calibrated macroeconomic model). Waste of time. Please post listings by subject area. A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. Editor obviously read the paper. Good report, positive rec. [2] [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors . Handled by the new co-editor. One very good report, the other OK. Nice rejection letter. Avoid at all cost. Comments are constructive. useless reports referees didn't seem to read the paper and appeared not to be experts .. Desk-rejected in 7 days: "the paper lacks sufficient political economy content to be appropriate". The status has been "Pending Editor Triage" for 10 months. https://wpcarey.asu.edu/economics-degrees/research-seminars-workshops, Hoy (World Bank), Cox (Yale), Toppeta (UCL), Prettnar (UCSB), Kang (Stony Brook), Abdulhadi (OSU), Sun (Penn State), Seyler (Laval), Neal (UNSW), Lin (UCLA), Huang (NYU), Zhang (Princeton), Beltekian (Nottingham), Jin (BU & CMU), Kumagai (Brown), Zhou (Chicago Postdoc), Chen (LISER & Tilburg), https://rse.anu.edu.au/seminars-events/all-seminars, Senior Economist or FSS Senior Analyst (2022-2023 PhD Job Market), Behavioral Economics, Experimental Economics, Assistant Professor, Business and Public Policy, Kapon (Princeton postdoc), Moscona (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Nord (EUI), Vergara (Berkeley), Wang (EUI), Ashtari (UCL), Sung (Columbia), Conwell (Yale), Carry (ENSAE), Song (USC), Thereze (Princeton), Banchio (Stanford GSB), Vitali (UCL), Wong (Columbia), Kang (Stanford GSB), Ba (UPenn), Durandard (Northwestern), Department of Social and Political Sciences, Zenobia T. Chan (Princeton), Xiaoyue Shan (Zurich), Germain Gauthier (CREST), Massimo Pulejo (NYU), Joan Martnez (Berkeley), Enrico Miglino (UCL), Assistant Professor of the Practice in Economics, Borghesan (Penn) Wagner (Harvard) Acquatella (Harvard) Vitali (UCL) Zahra Diop (Oxford) Bernhardt (Harvard), Boston University, Pardee School of Global Studies, Assistant Professor of International Economic Policy, Yeji Sung (Columbia), Joao Guerreiro(Northwestern), Seck (Harvard), Borusyak (UCL), Rexer (Wharton), College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University, Castro de Britto (Bocconi), Alfonsi (Berkeley), Miano (Harvard), Hazard (PSE), Uccioli (MIT), Brandimarti (Geneva), Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Mattia (Chicago), Applied Microeconomics, Business Economics, Hampole (Kellogg), Kwon (HBS), Morazzoni (UPF), Puri (MIT), Vasudevan (Yale), Wang (Stanford GSB), Pernoud (Stanford), Vats (Booth), Otero (UC Berkeley, hes accepted the Columbia GSB offer), Commonwealth University of Pennsylvania - Bloomsburg, Cong @Cornell is a free rider of people's research, Szerman(Princeton), Kohlhepp(UCLA), Contractor(Yale), Pauline Carry (CREST), Nimier-David (CREST), Lukas Nord (EUI), Philipp Wangner (TSE), Anna Vitali (UCL), Lucas Conwell (Yale University), Florencia Airaudo (Carlos III), Fernando Cirelli (NYU), Nils Lehr (Boston Univesrity), Sara Casella (University of Pennsylvania), Yehi Sung (Columbia University), Shihan Shen (UCLA), Federico Puglisi (Northwestern University), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Juan Manuel Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton University), Martin Souchier (Stanford), Benny Kleinman (Princeton Univerisity), Miano (Harvard), Ramazzotti (LSE), Miglino (UCL), Petracchi (Brown), Augias (Sciences Po), Uccioli (MIT), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Vattuone (Warwick), Yang (ANU), Mantovani (UPF), Ashtari Tafti (UCL), Colombo (Mannheim), Vocke (Innsbruck) (see here: shorturl.at/azHN1), Thereze (Princeton) Miller (Wharton) Matcham (LSE) van der Beck (EPFL) Casella (UPenn) Wang (Stanford GSB) Taburet (LSE) Pernoud (Stanford) Mittal (Columbia) Hampole (Kellogg). Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. First round took 2 months. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. One ref decided to the opportunity to pimp their own working paper. Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. One told me I should have use the methodology introduced by XPTO et al, which was the one I used and cited Only worthy comment was the editors who stated (and rightly so) that though our model statistically improved forecasts. Comments were useful and recommended a tier of journal to try next. It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. One useful report, the other poor. Contribution not new enough. One ref in favor, one against. Both reviews helpful - one very extensive. Awful experience. Did not receive a rejection letter from the co-editor. 7 months waiting for one poor referee report rejecting the paper for an unwarranted wording issue. May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. Editor had different opinion. In general, efficient journal, 2 months, 2 good reports & 1 trash report, fair outcome and ok process. It was crazy to wait that long for a dek rejectionwas not happy at alland there was not any comments or any reviews at allbasically waited for nothing for 5 months.. 3 weeks for a desk reject. Editor like the paper but their hands were tied, I guess. Good reports and no nitpicking on the revision. What is left to say? Good experience. Worse experience ever. This was after a 6 month wait and emails to the editor to follow up. They have not released it, sorry. Poor report! My fault for not discussing that up front. Most graduates apply to 50 or more schools to hope to get one job. Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. The editor talked about 4 ref reports. quick process but the editor provided no information and was impolite. Quick rejection. Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that! Good strong editors. Very good referee reports. Two referee reviews. Needless to say, the error is not as such, Bad reports (full of mistakes, pointed out to AE but didn't work), Assigned to an associate editor and got desk reject. Super standard rejection letter from Olivier Coibion, no advice whatsoever Two months to a desk reject, with zero information from the editor's response. things slowed down because of covid. Referee recommends conditional accept but AE strongly against publication. Poorly managed journal. I suppose if your work is primarily empirical then you'd better do something that's close to the editor's personal interest, otherwise there will always be the criticism that you need more theory. Nothing in the email suggested that anyone had actually read the paper. Very good referee reports and useful suggestions from the AE, 1 very good referee report, 1 completely useless. Horrible experience. 3 reports. Referee misread the paper, and hammered us on points that we were not making. Some good comments from referees, overall a good experience. Avoid at all costs. Form-letter rejection. The paper was accepted after one round of submission. In the first three, the referees took 3 months and tehn 9 months to take care of comments. Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. But I'm a nobody. 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. Editors are not reading referee reports. Comments were not really helpful. Horrible associate editor, Arkolakis, rejected based on his personal views. Editor wrote report himself. Reasonably quick. the? In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. wanted to reject from the outset. very comprehensive report. Paper: "Regulating the Sharing Economy: A Study of Unlawful Providers". Very fast and efficient. But then again it was my fault, I didn't run an experiment! Actually, it was overall positive. Three rounds. Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Gave a quick explanation and said they did a thorough read of the paper. Good experience. Much better than plain vanilla Economics Letters. For the fee would have been nice if the Editor had written a paragraph about why they rejected. Horrible experience. Very tough but very useful report! said it was a matter of fit. (However, because there was only one referee, whose specialty aligned with only part of the paper, he/she barely attempted to comment on much of the paper, perhaps to its detriment.). Emailed journal to withdraw submission after 14 months. Clearly the paper was not good enough for the JIE. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. Crappy journal with crappy editor. I waited for seven months, only to receive one superficial referee report. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( [email protected]). Referee reports were modestly helpful, though there was very little overlap between what the referees commented on. Editor sat on completed reports for 3 months before making a decision. only one report (quite helpful). Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. Was not worth waiting that long (this is an understatement). Great experience. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. Particularly, one of the referees seemed like he didn't read a single word past the intro. Still, was super fast and allows to improve the paper. Probably I was a bit lucky the 2 referees liked the idea of teh paper sicne ti was a bit sort and basically asked me to do some mreo stuff. Fast turn around with great referee reports that significantly improved the paper. 3 reports, very quick. 1 Month and 10 days for first decision is too long. It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. Full of informative/wrong comments. The other referee has no idea what I am doing. Both referees were concerned about identification, but did not suggest how to fix. Two weeks and they not assigned a manuscript ID number. Will not submit here again. Two reports are suggestive but the other one was a low-quality. Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff. Would try again. RR was done with care and useful overall. 2 strong reports with valid empirical critiques, 1 less so. I will never submit there again, Excellent and constructive reports. Very fast and fair process, despite the negative outcome. Submitted in 2014. Editor accepted the article within one week. Editor read the paper too and added some short comments. Mostly unhelpful report filled with numerous unnecessary resentful and bitter. A bit of wait but ok for econ standards. One refree report who made very useful comments that helped significantly improve the paper. One of them was very detailed. quality reviewers. That is not cool. Considering withdrawing. I am a macroeconomist specialized in economic growth and macro labor. Rejected within two weeks. Very long time to receive the first decision (major revision). Good report. Reviewing all the documents, she does not like the paper: rejection with 800 words of blabla. Two referee reports; one high quality, one very low quality. Editor did not add any comments. Editor accepted it. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. He suggested a general interest journal. 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. Standard rejection letter. The low-quality report won out Reject with two solid reports. Rejection after R&R. Such a waste of my valuable time. Besides, the editor's messages were rude. 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. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Wasted months of work. It took the editor 3 months to write two paragraphs and reject. he clearly read the paper. I think he/she was too lazy or unfamiliar with the literature to read the paper carefully. Several rounds of mildly encouraging R&R reports, then paper was lost. The two anonymous referees were surely competent even though they did not go in depth as the editor did. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. The editor provided one. Found out it was rejected only by contacting them. At least turnaround time was fast: 14 days. Good report. Very disappointed at the editor who made a decision based on such a low quality report. Fantastic experience. Three reports, all of high quality, within 2 months. Editor mentioned the wrong econometric model in email making it clear it was not read. The report had a few good notes but none that really seemed to disqualify the paper from getting an R&R. Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. Desk reject due to lack of scope of the manuscript, Rejected for a lack of contribution. With referees in 15 days of submission. Referees mostly wanted me to provide more background and a deeper policy discussion. Referee only comments on the first half of the paper. Very bad experience. fast desk rejection within 2 days. 7 days from first submission to minor revision. A black bitch barks at East Europe. No comments whatsoever, in an un-signed email with 2 generic sentences, Desk rejected after one week with kind words from co-editor and recommended field journal, Poor justification, pure taste by Debraj Ray. There is no option to choose 'Referees Accepted' but 'Editor Rejected'. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. Fast and kind desk rejection. Education, Labor, Gender, Development and Public Policies. End of story. Should be careful to submit. Solid referee report and very quick response. Some comments from the editor, some are useful. Fast turnaround, I'm very happy with the experience. Constructive and very specific. Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. Not general interest enough. Editor was also very helpful. Editor sat for two months on completed referee report and rejected without adding any comments. 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. Pretty bad experience. Process a bit slow. One guy who had no clue, the other who had good insight into our paper. My paper was transferred after rejected from a higher ranked journal. I got the referee reports after 2.5 months from submission. A good journal, Quick and fair outcome with a nice response from the editor, Good experience with every step completed in a timely fashion. Note that the shorter the time span considered, the more likely the ranking is going to be spurious. Difficulties to reach the editor, but useful report and very fast decision (1 day) after submitted the revised manuscript. 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. Fair. Useful reports. A grad student could do better! 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. Really quick response and decent referee report.
Categories