Excellent referee reports, with useful input from the editor (Auerbach) regarding how to handle them. 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. More than 16 weeks!! Was actually scared based off of runors I heard on this site. Pleasantly surprised by the quality of referee report. Big lie. Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. SIX MONTHS for a desk reject. Expected better, expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision. forthcoming papers by the Chief editor shoshana. 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. possible that the editor reviewed it himself, but was a fairly straightforward accept, trivial revisions only. Garbage. Bad experience. A number of emails without reply since then. Empirical results didn't match their political priors so recommended rejection. Other, did not read the paper carefully yet rejected. Extremely valuable referee reports and advices from the editor. Three months for an "out of scope" decision. Complete waste of time.. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), Reports not very helpful, paper not in journal scope. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. Very quick handeling, decent reports. My worst experience ever. This journal is a scam! Another 2+ month desk reject. Fair process. 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. Editor and referees seemed willing to listen to reason which encouraged me to work hard on the revision and make my case when I thought reports misguided. Awful experience. Very good experience. Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. Two referees made great reviews and very detailed comments. Quick response. The letter from the editor suggests that he/she did not have a firm grasp of the paper. Editor does not made any comment, probably has not read the paper at all. 14 days for a desk rejection. Very efficient process. Fair. My experience with other journals when there is only 1 referee, the editor always provides a report detailing their reasons for accepting or rejecting the paper. Great experience. Almost happy. Controversial journal. Editor gives no justification whatsoever. University of Sheffield. 6 months for a referee report written by a plain imbecile who could not even derive Proposition 1. Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. I was surprised these two letters resulted in the overall reject. one so-so report and one excellent report, Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics. One good report, one completely useless with only superficial, general remarks. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO) the? One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. one ok report, one very hostile. Unhelpful, rambling. Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response. Took almost 3 months for the first reports. Refs gave some okay minor comments but no big, subtantive critiques. This paper has just been accepted in a top transportation journal now. After waiting for 6 months, I sent a polite email to the editor asking if the paper fell through the cracks. Despite disappointing turnout, reports were good with useful and specific suggestions on ways to improve the paper. Reports were sound and improved the paper substantially. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. One of them gave some good suggestions, but I disagree with some other points she made. Comments from Larry very helpful. Short turn around time. Acceted as is; not a single change requested. Good experience with helpful AE and reviewer. Every time I'm impressed by how precise the reviews and suggestions are. Desk-rejected after one week without any substantial or specific comment, apart recommending to submit to a specialist journal. The referee reports were fairly good. low-quality referee reports. Explains longish time to first review. Fast response time. Fast turnaround and good comments. The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. Overall, great experience. two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. Unbased rejection after more than six months with mediocre reports and editorial justification. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!! My previous two research papers were also desk rejected by Barro. both reviewers rejected for different reasons, reports were overall helpful but some comments showed lack of understanding. Contribution not new enough. Very fast; useful, reasonably positive report despite rejection. superficial comment. One referee suggested R and R. Other referee rejected (AE and DE supported this). Finance Job Rumors (489,486) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,772) Micro Job Rumors (15,235) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,012) China Job Market (103,527) Industry Rumors (40,348) Copied and pasted the comments, some of which were not even relevant for the current version of the the paper. Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. Clearly the referee was someone not in the field of the paper (Asset Pricing). A UK guy handles my paper and give me a desk rejection after 3 months. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. Referee 1 happy with resubmission (no further comments), referee 2 suggested rejection or major rewriting. Great experience. Turnaround times are reasonable though. Pleasant experience. Due to a "typographical error" in sending me an email, I had to wait an extra month (and after I emailed asking for a status update) to learn of the rejection - wasting time I could have spent submitting it to another journal. Big fat load of help. useless report from "expert" regurgitating my explicitly stated caveats, B.E. The reviewer was excellent, made the paper much better with his/her comments. Long wait, decision was communicated with a delay of 3 months after reports had been received. Generic letter saying the paper was not fit to general interest journal. The editor Mark Taylor accepted the paper after one day of the last re-submission. Amazing efficiency. 100 USD for such VALUABLE suggestion. Beyond the scope of the journal. Rejection reason: not general interest enough. Received 1st response within a month with a very helpful referee report. Although the paper got accepted, the quality of the comments and the editor's comments were beyond laughable and actually really make me regret having it sent there but it is too late. 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. No feedback at all. Terrible screening process at this journal. Zero constructive comments! Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). 2 straightforward reports with fair criticism. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. Just didn't seem to believe paper, but without any really good reason. 1st round 2 1/2 months. Constructive referee report; said needed more robustness checks, but difficult in word limit. The editor decided major revision. Very Fast. Fast and fair. NEVER submit there if you are pre-tenured. It took too long, I do not know if I would submit there again. Modifications responded mainly to the good report. Apply for Market Access Asia region manager job with HPE in Taipei, Taipei City, 11568. PhD & Postdoctoral Research Fellow Job Market Candidates 2022 - 2023 Home Page CV ANDREW HANNON PHD Research Fields: Macroeconomics, Household Finance, Sovereign Debt, Financial Stability and the Housing Market Job Market Paper: Falling Behind: Delinquency and Foreclosure in a Housing Crisis References: Dr. . Terrible report. Complete garbage. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. The Editor suggested a more traditional public finance journal. Fair report but not anything that couldn't be corrected in R&R. The editor, Gideon Saar, was lazy and did not read the paper. We sent two more emails about the status of the paper and did not get a response from the office. Some nice words from the editor. The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. Quite fast luckily. Took 3 month for a simple "out of scope" notification!! Very disappointed at the editor who made a decision based on such a low quality report. Probably the editor took a look at my zip code, and told the AE that "this should be quick". the ?Nash? He does not read the paper, or he has no expertise. Awfully slow for a desk reject, but at least the editor gave a couple of helpful comments and it was clear he'd read the paper with care. It seems to me that this was an easy way for the new Editor to reject the paper! That sounds fair to me. Low quality comments from Frank Sloan. (I submitted almost the same paper to another journal). Crawford rejects although refs and editor recommends revision. I am an assistant professor at Universit de Montral. Very weak reports. We do not need dumb editors!! 1 referee with small reasonable suggestions. Think one more time before sending here. Education, Labor, Gender, Development and Public Policies. His comments indicate he did not have an open arm to read introduction carefully to desk reject. Co-editor rejects because contribution is not big enough to warrant publication. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. after more than 3 months still "with editor". Editor was really nice. Currently in R&R. Would submit here again. Wish the outcome was different, but the turnaround time couldn't have been better. Two reports. The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! Ex: CDF was derived to construct the likelihood of a discrete choice model, a reviewer writes the author does not use the derived CDF. 0/10 would recommend. Paper was poorly read by the referees. Grossbard handled the paper and accepted conditional on rewrite around her useless and poorly cited old work. Editor slept on the paper's submission history and the reviewer's dishonesty. Summary understated contribution of the paper making it looking boring. Split referees, Adda came down on the side of the negative ones. Helpful editor. 20 months for this type of journal is super long. Bad experience. Reviews not very helpful as it seems like psychologists reviewed it. Worst referee report ever with unsubstantiated claims. William A. Barnett is a very professional editor and reviews were helpful. My fault for not discussing that up front. Good experience as far as rejections go. 1 was very low quality -- couple of bullet points that made clear reviewer had not read paper. Overall very good quality of reports and very helpful guidance from the editor. Submitted a really cool COVID-19 theory and emperical paper. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. Applied Economics was usually getting back to me in 6 months or even more, this time I had great experience. It seems that the last guy didn't read the paper carefully and I wonder how it could take 4month to write such a poor report. Generic rejection letter from the editor arguing lack of fit. Still got rejected. Fair decision. Editor didn't read the paper. It is run by "Kirk", [2] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful). The editor said that referee is an expert in this field. Editor is a insecure joke. Smooth experience, although a bit slow in getting to the paper (quick when they actually did). One of the best run journals in macro. It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. Third referee was slow and did not provide public report (he caused the delay). Very reputable journal with fast response policy which is good for authors: desk rejection in weeks, referee rejection in 2-3 months (usually). Good reports. No refund. Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations, two reports, comments not always very clear on what was wanted but still helpful. Negative reaction of referees. Disappointing outcome, but OK overall experience. Finance Job Rumors (489,006) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,503) Micro Job Rumors (15,223) Macro Job Rumors (9,792) European Job Market (100,940) China Job Market (103,450) Industry Rumors (40,309) I do nto think my paper was taken very seriously. Reflects really poorly on the journal to keep this guy. The referee was ideologically opposed to our paper more than anything else. The other report was useless. Will submit there in the future. Desk reject in two weeks. Not signed by any specific editor, so not even sure who handled the manuscript. low quality and very short referee report Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text. 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. Some good comments from referees, overall a good experience. I wish them luck. RR with major changes, then RR with minor changes, then accepted after 1 week. This, of course, is useless. One very grumpy referee report. Why don't black people open carry and call it 2nd amendment rights? Got a rejection within a couple of days without any constructive comment. The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! Submission fee not refunded. Basically if you don't make everyone happy on the first round you stand no chance at this journal. Referees didnt understand shape of indifference curves, confused standard errors for standard deviations, ignored figures in main text while misinterpreting figures from the appendix. Comments were not really helpful. Two reports. Comments are helpful. Two of three referees did not read the paper. EconJobRumors.com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is a website for academic economists. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. desk with a letter from editor. Hollifield copy-pasted unsubstantiated claims in rejection letter apparently without even having a look on the paper. The editor was not helpful at all. Not general interest enough. A disappointment. Ljunquist is pretty passive. The rejection was fine but took too long for a desk reject. Horrible experience, late response, useless report. Editor obviously read the paper and had great comments. Suggested to send to another journal! Two thoughtful refs, one clueless. One referee seemed inexperienced and little informative comments. fluent ?in? Very fast process, that is why I submitted to the journal.
4 Card Tarot Spread Past, Present, Future,
How Did Katie Bates Meet Travis Clark,
Station 19 Fanfiction Andy In The Hospital,
Jefferson County, Tn Subdivision Restrictions,
Articles E
econ job market rumors wiki