According to him one referee is in favor but the other is not. Duh, Very helpful response from editor giving specific reasons that the manuscript would not be sent to referees, Thanks for your joining the Society, by the way, we don't think your historical paper with brand new historical data is right for a history journal. One decent report. Desk rejected after one day due to poor fit. One reviewer gave very constructive suggestions. Commented that something we are doing is not correct, while all the papers in the field are doing the same. Not a great experience. accepted immediately after minor revision. Overall good experience. Easiest publication of my life! Desk rejected within 7 days. 2 Reports. Editor admitted haven't read the paper. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. Comments are constructive. Nice when they actually read the paper. Constructive and helpful comments from the co-editor. Reasonably quick. All comments seem easy to answer. Water Research Manager (Project Manager) The other was low quality and made factually incorrect statements that seemed to influence the associate editor's assessment of the manuscript. Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Unanswered letters to editor by the 6th and 12th months after submission, only got reply after getting in touch to editorial office. After revision, paper accepted in a week. Two reports negative and one positive, editor chooses to reject. Editor rejected the paper based on the decision of board of editor. Could have been more lucky with referees, but at least it was very efficient. I was very grateful despite the rejection. 14 days. UCLA Economics. Editor skimmed it at best and decided to reject without comments. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. Kind and informed letter from editor. but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. At least the fee is refunded. Coming off of a failed R&R at a higher ranked journal. The third was R&R, and was more substantive. it ?could ?be ?the ?case ?that ?I ?have? 2 weeks for a desk rejection, editor actually read the paper and commented on it before deciding it is more suited to a field journal. 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. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Two referees made great reviews and very detailed comments. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). Horrible treatment. 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). Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. Constructive comments and Nice experimence! When do I give up? Just didn't seem to believe paper, but without any really good reason. Paper desk rejected in 4 days. Sounds fair. Desk reject after 3 days. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. Initially submitted on 2 Aug, we got the rejection six month later. An associate editor left some comments, which showed that they read at least some of the paper. Useful reports. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. Faculty of Economics Austin . Handled by an editor who is not in the same field. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. Referee wrote a short report with easily implementable suggestions, suggesting revision. The editor provided one. Absolutely idiotic low-quality comments. Excellent ref report. A second round of minor revision was requested. What follows is a summary of what I see as the key advice, with links to other resources that go into more depth or do a better job than I can. 3rd round 1 month and then accepted. Very good editor recommending a field journal. 2 rejects, 1 R&R. Desk accept? frustrating, because paper not assigned to the editor who works in my field. Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. Extremely helpful comments that significantly improved the paper in the end. Job Market. 3 weeks to desk reject. Editors keep delaying despite returned reports, seems to be a pattern with this journal. Passed the desk (Turner) in ten days. All good, minor additions were suggested. Other two reports are fine, although one other also did not read a section, s/he says. Ended up being a better paper. Reports were of moderate quality. And he did not find the topic interesting. Some useful comments, most misreads and poor understanding of model. Very smooth process. Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. The AE report made no sense at all, and had very little substance. Lastly withdrew for good after another six months. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. Based on the comments of one more referee with few points, he rejects. It also tries to give advice, but not really doable. Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. Editor gave me chance to convince other referee. After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. More than 16 weeks!! The editor said some good words but also said he could not turn over the recommendation. Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper, no longer a serious all purpose journal imho; "desk reject" after 6 mos on the basis of style in the abstract, Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded, One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end, Terrible experience. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. No reason given (just lack of fit..), no suggestions to improve, no money back. The reports are also very helpful. The two anonymous referees were surely competent even though they did not go in depth as the editor did. One crappy referee report, one useful referee report, one grad student referee report. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. Waste of time and money. Also, reviewers are non-economists, providing some real WTF comments. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. So, I "told mother", and she was like "What is Edge-mer? In a word, this is not a serious journal. One very good report, 6 pages long. Helpful comments from the editor (besides the usual thy shall cite my papers). Four months for a desk reject! Some unfair comments about replicating what other papers have done (which are already discussed in the paper!) One positive one negative. One line "referee report". Got accepted in three days. Lousy comments from the Editor in chief. Desk rejected after 3 days. Fast and kind desk rejection. Editor provided detailed advice throughout the entire revision process. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. To summarize, this reviewer apparently thought he had better English than Shakespeare. Three months for an "out of scope" decision. A lot of small nit-picky criticism and some factually wrong statements about paper. Editor Prof. David Peel is a very nice guy. Several rounds of mildly encouraging R&R reports, then paper was lost. I felt as if 65$ has evaporated from my pocket. Welcome to the EconTrack Job Market Information Board, a service hosted by the AEA. Very efficient process with explicit timeline. Two reports are suggestive but the other one was a low-quality. Fair decision and process, 2 mildly positive reviews, editor shot it down. Excellent Experience. 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. Nice words from Editor. View Board. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. Got published after three rounds. The AE also provided his own review. Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. Two rounds of R&R. Editor said there are two reports but I only received one. major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). After that, the R&R only took 10 days and we also tackled a minor comment from the editor. I think the editor may have been waiting on a 3rd report, glad they didn't wait any longer (20 weeks is enough to wait for a reject). Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half. He gave few recommendations. Probably the editor took a look at my zip code, and told the AE that "this should be quick". New . Ref report definitely helpful. Advisor: Prof. Caterina Calsamiglia. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. 1 report (from different referees) each round. Will never submit again to ER. At least the process was fast. Article was rejected but the comments were generally helpful and thoughtful. one ok report, one very hostile. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. Got the refund soon after request. Editorial processes were very fast. Decision was made in 45 days. Editor noted that paper of an associate editor was not cited but did not mention the name of the paper. best submission experience. 1: 1: We have moved! Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. Lots of minor standardized formating requests, then a gap of 10 weeks to get accepted. Very good experience. One referee openly mentioned s/he doesnt like the method used in the paper. Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. 2 months for desk rejection is awkward. Very fast and professional referee reports. His comments indicate he did not have an open arm to read introduction carefully to desk reject. The law scholar did not like technical thing but I just used. Professional editor. Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. 2nd round interview requests recently sent out which will result in second round of flyouts), Ederer (Toulouse), Beyhum (CREST/ENSAI), Wiseman (Berkeley), Zillessen (Oxford), Seibel (Zurich), De Vera (CEMFI), Laffitte (ULB), Leibniz-Zentrum fr Europische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH Mannheim, Lin William Cong @Cornell sexual harassment, Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Clare Balboni (MIT) Yong Cai (Northwestern), Joel Flynn (MIT), Benny Kleinman (Princeton), Joan Martinez (UC Berkeley), Anh Nguyen (MIT), Agathe Pernoud (Stanford), Roman Rivera (Columbia), Michael Rubens (UCLA), Regina Seibel (Zurich), Natalia Serna (Wisconsin), Christiane Szerman (Princeton), Milena Wittwer (Boston), Hannah Zillessen (Oxford), Althoff (Princeton), Balboni (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Szerman (Princeton), Serna (Wisconsin), Luxembourg Institue of Socio-Economic Research, Assistant Professor in Computational Social Science, Eisfeld (Toulouse), Tiew (Harvard), Woo (Rochester), Sharma (NDS), Sullivan (Yale), Ramos (Harvard), Majewska (Toulouse), Ebrahimi (UBC), Lesellier (Toulouse), Camara (Northwestern), Alba (Toronto), Conlon (Harvard), Bernhardt (Harvard), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), National University of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Aina(Zurich) Ba (UPenn) Bernhardt (Harvard) Cai (Northwestern) Carry(CREST) Chang (Yale) Flynn(MIT) Geddes (Northwestern) Moszkowski (Harvard) Nguyen(MIT) Pernoud(Stanford) Puri(MIT) Rivera(Columbia) Saxena (Harvard) Schuh(Stanford) Souchier(Stanford) Sung (Columbia) Tiew (Harvard) Vitali(UCL) Wiseman (Berkeley), Wong (Columbia), Teng (LUISS), Dimitri Pugachev (INSEAD), Andrey Kurbatov (INSEAD), Felix Wilke (SSE), Uettwiller (Imperial), Sam Piotrowski (Connecticut), Chuck Fang (Wharton), Thomas Grunthaler (Munster), Celine Fei (UNC), Denis Monakov (UCLA), Weiting Hu (Washignton-St. Louis), Valentin Schubert (SSE), Kurbatov, Wilke - declined, Schubert - declined, Piotrowski, Pugachev, Grunthaler - declined, Monakov, Piotrowski (Connecticut), Pugachev (INSEAD), Monakov (UCLA), Kurbatov (INSEAD), Nguyen (MIT), Flynn (MIT), Singh (MIT), Sullivan (Yale), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Sharma (MIT), Qiu (UPenn), Lanzani (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Vergara (UC Berkeley), Wiseman (UC Berkeley), Kroft (Toronto, AP) Kaur (Berkeley AP) Deshpande (Chicago AP) Ryan (Yale AP), Minni (LSE), Otero (UC Berkeley), Pernoud (Stanford), Crews (Chicago), Barone (UCLA), Mills (Princenton), Cai (NW), Jou (UCLA), Rittenhouse (UCSD) Mugnier (CREST) Acquatella (Harvard) Rivera (Columbia) D'Adamo (UCL) Zahra Diop (Oxford), Barone (UCLA), Mills (Princeton), Pellegrina (NYUAD AP), Mugnier (CREST), Beyhum (CREST AP), Deopa (AMSE), Kuang (Cornell), Gordon (Yale), Wang (EUI), Benmir (LSE & Paris Dauphine), Dahis (PUC-Rio AP), Lieber (Chicago), Tebbe (IIES), Ospital (UCLA), DAdamo (UCL), Peking University, Guanghua School of Management, Shen (UCLA), Qiu (Penn), Yang (Princeton), Assistant Professor in Environmental and Resource Economics, Flynn (MIT), Chen (Stanford GSB), Bleemer (Yale), Singh (MIT), Lanzani (MIT), Nguyen (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Sandomirsiy (Caltech), Wang (Stanford GSB), Carry (CREST), Conlon (Harvard), Vergara (Berkeley), Moscona (MIT), Souchier (Stanford), Bleemer (Yale), Carry (CREST), Chen (Stanford GSB), Seck (Harvard), Singh (MIT), Bernhard Dalheimer (Trade & Macroeconomics); Laura Montenovo (State & Local Finance); Guy Tchuente (Quantitative Methods in Spatial Analysis), Hannon (Cambridge), Austin (Oxford Said), Altmann (Oxford), Wangner (TSE), Rudov (Princeton), Uettwiller (Imperial), Leroutier (SSE), de Sousa (UC3M), Pieroni (UAB), Pugachev (INSEAD), Ashtari (UCL), Kim (UCSD), Casella (UPenn), Raja (LSE), Lieber (Chicago), Yang (Duke); see https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sef/events/seminars/, Assistant Professor of Economic Analysis and Policy, Moszkowski (Harvard), Wheeler (Berkeley), Cui (Wharton), Kytomaa (University of Texas at Austin), Sullivan (Yale), Seibel (Zurich), Fleitas (Leuven), Barnes (Berkeley), Lehr (Boston University) https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/AcademicAreas/Seminars, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Wiseman (UC Berkeley), Ferey (LMU), Morazzoni (UPF), Acquatella (Harvard/BU), Diop (Oxford), Eisfeld (TSE), Khalifa (AMSE), Gauthier (CREST), Bodere (NYU), Decker (Zurich), Wang (EUI), Wangner (TSE), Garg (Columbia), Miglino (UCL), Gordon (Yale), Michael Gilraine (NYU), Victor Aguiar (Western), International, public, labor, IO, development, Prasanthi Ramakrishnan (WUSTL), 02/15/2023, Delgado-Vega (UC3M), Castillo Quintana (NYU), Bergeron (USC AP), Slough (NYU, AP), Seck (Harvard), Teso (Northwestern, AP), Bernhardt (Harvard), No offer has been made as of March 3rd, your information is wrong, Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Pauline Carry (CREST), Benny Kleinman (Princeton), Kwok-Hao Lee (Princeton), Jacob Moscona (Harvard/MIT), Sagar Saxena (Harvard), Puri (MIT), Conlon (Harvard), Kleinman (Princeton), Bilal (Harvard AP), Seck (Harvard), Nguyen (MIT), Moscona (MIT), Crews (UChicago), Kleinman (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Moscona (MIT), Grindaker (BI Oslo), Terracciano (SFI), Huebner (UCLA), Taburet (LSE), Azzalini (IIES), Chen (SFI), Morazzoni (UPF), Gopalakrishna (EPFL), Charles (USC Marshall), Monteiro (Kellogg), ; see https://tinyurl.com/4rktwnf6, Minni (LSE), Guige (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Merilainen (ITAM), Carry (CREST), Khalifa (AMSE), Seibel (Zurich), Heath Milsom (Oxford), Carry (CREST); Wiseman (Berkeley); Casella (UPenn); Wu (Rochester); Silliman (Harvard); Morazzoni (UPF); Khalifa (AMSE); Babalievsky (Minnesota); Jha (UBC); Qiu (UPenn). If you are in a hurry or need one to fill you CV, then choose it.. editor very helpful. Editor guidance also helpful. 1 month + 10 days for desk rejection. Good reports. Maybe paper is not good enough, but the "report" was not convincing either. However, the editor (Mallick) kindly suggested to add papers from this journal ("As there is not citation from this journal when the journal has published several papers on this topic"). The other referee recommended revision. Second decision took 2.5 months. Seemed like a very long time to only receive one referee report. City of PhoenixPhoenix - USA, Senior Analyst - Economics Department Tough reports that required a lot of work but ultimately improved the paper significantly. Even though my paper was rejected, they will be useful to improve the paper prior to resubmission to another journal. Two useful reports and one garbage report thrashing the paper. 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. After more data were collected, the editor said "a referee suggested empirical work was not serious enough." There is no option to choose 'Referees Accepted' but 'Editor Rejected'. One very low quality. Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. Bigger joke than the article I sent them. AER Insights: Generic rejection without any thought or suggestion. The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. Contribution not new enough relative to the existing literature. 3 rounds then rejected by editor, paper was improved by addressing reviewers' comments, eventually accepted at RFS, Cam Harvey gave useless report; obvious outgoing editor is obvious. Interesting but not a good fit. Editor sent a peper to a 3rd ref, which took forever to write another negative report. Helpful and fair referee reports. Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California (USA) 1 referee with small reasonable suggestions. Very quick response. the website was hackedthe report was good, and the associate editor is very nice. ~5 weeks. One review was good, and helped to improve the paper, the other one (recommended rejection) was raising many peripheral issues. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. 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. One seems to be written by a first-year bachelor student. The editor read the paper carefully and made helpful comments. Would submit here again. Reasonable referee report. Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending). There were 2 rounds of revision after which the reviewers validated the manuscript. One synthetic but straight to the point referee report, asking for very specific and reasonable corrections to the paper. Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. 2 weeks to desk reject. The most idiotic referees I've ever seen. Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. Editor recommended field journal submission. Initial demanding R&R. Very nice words from the editor but useless referee reports. So if your topic is not within this field, the desk rejection is much more likely. 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). Didn't let it go, Editor told him to "#"# off and published the paper anyway. Says model's too complex then suggests an addition which would have tripled the state space.
Apartment For Rent In Visalia, Ca Under $800,
1987 Montana State Football Roster,
Articles E