He/she states that a particular model delivers a set of results, although I show that it does not. I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know very quick. The dynamic is well known and its implications are rather straightforward in this context. Rather short reports for waiting 6 months. 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. re?write ?the ?paper ?with ?the ?help ?of ?some one? 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit. RR time was only 2 weeks, no bullshit nitpicking. Employers may also contact the students and their . EconJobRumors .com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is an internet forum for academic economists. No reason given. 6 weeks for two reasonable referee reports. Accepted once I satisfied the referees. But the discipline should find another way. The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! Would never submit anything to these people again and would never recommend to anyone else either. Useful ref reports and helpful comments from co-editor. Very helpful reports. Waste of time. Editor suggests trying different journal. Quick acceptance after revision. Comments are mainly about rephrasing implications and minor issues. 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. It is a disgrace to the profession reflects poorly on the journal. Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper. Our claims were supported. editor(s) provided good comments too. However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. Suggested a general interest journal. Very efficient editorial process by Ken West. Refs gave some okay minor comments but no big, subtantive critiques. Some of the people at my lower Referee said he just didn't like the paper. No other comments. Two weeks. Recommend field journals, Useful letter from the editor Dirk Krueger (aprox. One report useless, read only the first quarter of the paper. The most idiotic referees I've ever seen. One referee was OK with almost no comments. Minor comments from editor who appears to have at least gotten the gist of the paper. from AE, but editor rejected without explanation. A journal to avoid. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. Although desk-rejected, I am very satisfied. Desk rejected in 10 days because the editor wasn't a fan of the data. No regrets, Good reports, not extremely helpful, but good. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. He wanted to give the paper a careful read and this was not possible immediately. One low quality (taste-based) referee report. Editor read/scanned desk rejected paper. It's time for the journal to kick out some unprofessional referees. Very professional editors. Some fair some unwarranted comments. Got 3 ref reports - 1 RR 2 reject. fast desk rejection within 2 days. Water Research Manager (Project Manager) Super fast and clear feedback. The first note of the referee claimed that I didn't do something I clearly did. Very quick and professional editing. had another paper desk rejected by the same editor two years ago, text motivating the rejection was exactly the same (copy + paste) plus an additional 2 sentences explaining why the editor dislikes the approach chosen in the paper, Major revisions at the first round and then accepted. Referee misread the paper, and hammered us on points that we were not making. Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. Job Market. Submission fee not refunded. From the abstract to the conclusion, we kept arguing like "A is not the main point, we should look at B." Other, did not read the paper carefully yet rejected. Please add AERi to the combo box. 3 weeks. Desk rejected in 1 week. Desk reject after 3 days. However, I take as it was me not being able to pass the make the point I wanted. Apparent that editor read the paper. useless reports. My first submission in AE and it is the best experience ever. I did what was asked, and the revised paper was accepted by the editor after one week. 3 polite reports say it is interesting but too simple for aer. 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). We believe this policy serves contributors who are saved months of unnecessary delays. Excellent and clear communication with editors. Very constructive comments from Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) and referees. The other reviewer raised some minor issues. Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. Overall, great experecience! Referee reports were of high quality. Very impressed with comments received by the co-editor (Mark Armstrong), which were more substantive than the reviewers. Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda. Suggested top field (JPubE in our case). Desk rejected in 2 days. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. editor said the paper had too much economics, The editor was very helpful to summarize what he thought should be done from 4 referee reports. Very useful comments. not the fastest experience, but high quality comments from referees and the editor who liked the paper. 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. Poor quality single report. His comments indicate he did not have an open arm to read introduction carefully to desk reject. Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. 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. Crawford rejects although refs and editor recommends revision. Seemed to have an agenda, as though I offended his work. One good referee report, one referee who had no idea. Three weeks for a desk reject. One very good referee report out of three. Placement Director - Alessandro Pavan Email: alepavan@northwestern.edu. 2 week desk reject. Very good reports, very effective handling of the editor. Editing is a service and it is not mandatory. Editor misread the title and barely read the abstract. One report after 18 months. The AE finally conceded that I was right and the referee was wrong - but decided to reject the paper anyway! The literature review was complete! Editor's letter mentioned a 2-1 split in favor of rejection, so she rejected. 1 week: nice, but no fit with general interest. Resulted in much better paper. Very good referee reports. Good experience with helpful AE and reviewer. Worst referee report ever with unsubstantiated claims. Total waste of time. The reports were good and helpful. 2 referees were positive throughout the process, one was an outright acceptance. Acceted as is; not a single change requested. The new editor rejected the paper 2 days after submitted it. The AE's letter was useful, although no suggestion what to try next. editor did not read the paper carefully, waste of US$250. So-so report. It seems to me that the editor rejected based on how well the article was written, rather than the substance of the work. I will try in the future. But no referee reports were supplied to me. Too long waiting time. Lucky to get past desk reject. Recommended field journals Clueless editor thinks results are of narrow interest. It took them 13 months to tell us that the article was better suitable for a different journal, Generic Desk Reject - Fortunately they only took 2 days. Also, reviewers are non-economists, providing some real WTF comments. Failed to notify me of rejection. 3 reports, very quick. A good referee report and very efficient editor. The revised submission was accepted within a month. Katz rejected in less than 24 hours with some comments. The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. Not of broad interest. One useless report, and one very useful report. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Law School. fast response but low quality referee reports, fast and reliable journal. Formulaic letter. Short unhelpful referee reports which ask to cite referees. One decent report. First referee constructive and positive. One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. The third was R&R, and was more substantive. Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. It is not very clear why it got rejected at the end (I guess referees recommended rejection but thsi was not stated in their reports so it coudl have been the editor who thought it was difficut to get published given the work needed).

Press Waffle Co Net Worth 2021, Zodiac Signs That Cry The Most, Medline Industries Annual Report 2020, Articles E