Weak reports with many assertaions that were simply untrue. Rather slow desk reject. Do not send your papers to this journal. desk rejected in a week. Education, Labor, Gender, Development and Public Policies. Editor provided no additional comments. This post is a continuous work in . Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). UghhhI will probably withdraw the submission, It is the worst experience I have ever had with a journal. Very well-run journal. Very disappointing experience with the journal and refereeing process. Desk rejected in a few days. One very good and one very weak report. "Growing by the Masses: Revisiting the Link between Firm Size and Market . as stated ("within 24 hours") we got an editorial reject claiming the lack of interest for a broad audience. Some people are simply too narrow in the scope of their research to be editors of a journal which claims to be of "general interest". But overall very very slow process. two referee reports. But the comments helped. "Not a good fit". Disappointing experience. Upon inspection these papers are only superficially related. Bad experience, there was a long wait of mroe than 10 months to get 2 referee reports that did not like the the paper (but not so sure why). All excellent reports, and good suggestions from the co-editor about what to focus on and where to send next. 1 report (from different referees) each round. He only mentioned that I failed to mention a lot of papers who were all by the same person. Really involved editor and a referee who suggested changes that, while complex, were easy to deal with. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. Efficient and fair. FYI: Your editor sucks). Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. No applied letter should take 9 months to referee and the fact that editor did not solicit additional reports or nag the referee shows they don't care. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. Bad experience. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!! Fast process and 2 helpful ref. Four months for a desk reject! The paper was accepted few days after the revised version has been submitted. Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. Very fair. Editor rejected. Constructive and very detailed referee comments improved the paper. Two weeks desk reject. 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. Suggested a more specialized journal. Pretty helpful reports. Suggested field journal. Waste of time. forthcoming papers by the Chief editor shoshana. First referee constructive and positive. Overall smooth process. The low-quality report won out Reject with two solid reports. Great management by editorial board although disappointing result. Very fast. Initially submitted on 2 Aug, we got the rejection six month later. Unacceptable waiting time. **** this journal. Letter from the editor not so much informative. In an attempt to argue that young women and girls, many in their teens, voluntarily contracted themselves into sex work at the so-called "comfort stations" set up by the Imperial Japanese military during World War II, the article contains a . Poor comments, one paragraph each asking for minor changes but rejected. Paper was a letter. Strongly recommend this journal for health economists! Comments dubious at best. I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. The editor picked a new (hostile) referee in the 2nd round. Very unprofessional. Considering withdrawing. 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. Emailed every six months never to any response. Was advised to submit to a field journal, Good reports, efficient process, we just didn't meet Katz's "general interest" standard, Surprised didn't get a desk reject. cooperative? Two referee reviews. Terrible referee did not understand LATE and simply could not be satisfied. Excellent and clear communication with editors. Annoying! Quite fast luckily. A bit long for a short paper, comments were fair and detailed although they pointed the way to an R&R rather than rejection. Suggested different journals, very efficient. The editor had read the paper and provided guidance. One short and one longer report. Referee did not even sent a report after year and a half. Two years ago, I had a different paper rejected by EER, with two good referee reports and an AE negative about it. Overall, paper first sent in November and accepted in next August! The IJIO has a rapid review process. Very good reports. Very good experience. Editor and editorial staff excellent. See Alice Wu's paper for details. One where the only material comment has a grammatical error that makes understanding it difficult? desk rejection within 1 week. Process was a complete disgrace. Would not bother again. At least turnaround time was fast: 14 days. The other was much more careful. The other without serious suggestions. Submission is waste of time. Referee told to write another paper instead. It is not clear why the referee does not like the paper but it is clear he does not need 5 months for such a report. Editor was fair, his decision was understandble, but 6 months is clearly too long. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Very efficient process with explicit timeline. Reports are not very detailed, but generally comments are fair. The contribution of the paper is not suficient for the EJ. Also sent some emails to the editors but have no replies. Second round--took less than a month to get 2 detailed second reports from referees--impressive! But editor rejects. JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending). Very good experience. Asim I. Khwaja editor, Two out of three referee reports were good one was much less. Very efficient process. Extremely disappointed. Complete waste of time!! 14 months from submission to publication online. Should have read the comments here about how badly run this journal is. Good experience. Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. Job Market - Economics But the editor read the paper, and recommends Econometrica or JET or TE, Katz needed less time to skim the paper and offer a few good comments than I needed to write a one-sentence cover letter, It is a Finance paper. Happy with the whole process. Editor wrote report himself. Very good referees. Both referees are bad at econometrics. Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. That mean 5 people read my paper? Just thoroughly unprofessional report. He/she states that a particular model delivers a set of results, although I show that it does not. Took 3 month for a simple "out of scope" notification!! Overall, it was a good experience. A grad student could do better! My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. One positive and two negative reports. Can you get a job? Quick response within three days. Paper has since been published. Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. Desk reject in 1 week. Less than insightful comments by an editor clearly hastily read the paper. Helpful and fair referee reports. placement@econ.ucla.edu. The outcome (referee rejection) was acceptable but 5 month waiting is a large waste of time! Very efficient process. Fast process. Three tough rounds which made the paper better. Liran Einav 650-723-3704 leinav@stanford.edu. One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. Accepted 4 days after resub. I got the referee reports after 2.5 months from submission. The editor simply did not read the paper, since he presented no specific comment whatsoever about it, nor any recommendation. 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. Paper desk rejected in 4 days. Please Login or . Very quick and very fair. Worst experience with a journal so far. In print a couple of weeks later. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. So they had no idea about basic econometrics. nice experience. A Doctorate level degree in Economics or related fields, or expect to receive it in 2023 with strong background in empirical analysis and policy-focused research. only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. My fault for not discussing that up front. Submitted a taxation paper that was outside of their comfort zone. Otrok rejected within 7 days; considerable comments on the paper, though the three major points are either just wrong or addressed (one of them prominently) in the introduction of the paper. Avoid avoid avoid this outlet if you are looking for a serious journal that will follow a fair referee process. Editor (and referees) rejected based on bad fit and offered suggestions for where to submit next. A very good experience. A complete discrage. Rejected on grounds of the paper not "establishing a new set of empirical facts that theory must confront" (Eric Leeper). Two solid referee reports. Job Market Paper: Local Polynomial Estimation of Time-Varying Parameters in GMM. One positive and one negative report. 5 months before the editor could take the time to look at the paper. At first the handling editor informed us that the paper is sent for peer review. Fantastic journal. Much better than regular EL. No regrets, Good reports, not extremely helpful, but good. Good communication with the editor, very helpful referee report. That is, the handling of the submission took almost 4 months, I think this is unacceptable: what is the point to have quick referee reports if the editorial team takes such a long time? Efficient and professional. One referee was extremely favourable, the other's comments were needlessly rude and completely hostile. The structure of the game, the policy and strategy spaces and other concepts are not introduced with sufficient clarity. No comments from Katz except go to field journal. The article went online first very quickly after acceptance, which was nice. "The empirical econometric novelty of the paper is not substantial enough ", Desk rejection within five days / Poor allocation of coordinating editor (microeconometrician for a time series paper), Quick desk rejection after manuscript ID was assigned. Desk rejected in two hours with a polite email that basically said "your methodology is wrong and your question is wrong." Worst experience of my life. Please post listings by subject area. One good report (weak r&r). 6 weeks to get 3 referee reports. Andrew Foster took a full month for a desk without a comment. Zero constructive comments! Then took about 14 months to be come out in print. Weird editor pushing for a change in the results. Reasonably good experience; referee not overly experienced with topic. There was supposed to be a third referee report that was not received, which may have been the reason for the time between submission to decision. Quick and professionsl process. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. Good experience, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever. Nice editor message. Very efficient. He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. 2 informed reports + very detailed comments and guidance by the AE. almost useless and the editor is too slow. No feedback at all. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. Editor read the paper and outlined clear (and fair) reasons for rejection. Giles is a great editor. 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. Almost two months for desk reject, no submission refund. Waste of the submission fee. Editor then said with a quick/thorough response and no need to go back to refs. Very tough journal with very extensive comments from 3 refs. Duke University. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. Vastly improved the paper but had to submit elsewhere. Arbitrary decision without sending it to refs by incompetent editor. Bad experience. 1 on the fence. Chat (0) Conferences. Got accepted after a week. Very useful suggestions by the editor who read the paper carefully. Referee reports are interesting and constructive. City of PhoenixPhoenix - USA, Senior Analyst - Economics Department Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. Will not submit again. AE editor rejects a paper that passed the desk at much better journals. Reviews not very helpful as it seems like psychologists reviewed it. Overall, great experience despite the negative outcome, The WORST experience of my rather long life. Editor said he appreciated the previous paper but seemed to reject this one (which is probably better) since it fits in with a similar literature. Acceted as is; not a single change requested. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. The referee was clearly trying to protect his own paper on a related topic; half of the bullet points referred to that paper. This journal is a scam. Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. 1 fair and 1 insulting referee report after waiting more than 10 months! Two helpful referee reports. Milner's an emeritus, what else does he have to do? The final version of the proof was more elegant as a result, I am very appreciative of the reviewers and the editor. Rejection without arguments/referee report. Kind, thoughtful, and brief editor letter. Also, reviewers are non-economists, providing some real WTF comments. One referee was amazing, the other one added no value. One report was an absolute travesty and surely had to be disregarded. Very helpful comment. 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. One good and two useless reports. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. Despite disappointing turnout, reports were good with useful and specific suggestions on ways to improve the paper. May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. Although I withdrew my article, editor sent me a rejection letter in a very rude manner.

Kring Point Campsite Photos, Mhra Licence Suspension, Kevin Weekes Stephanie Weekes, Articles E