Gorodnichenko was nice. Paper has since been published. Average time between rounds of R&R (months), EJMR | Job Market | Candidates | Conferences | Journals | Night Mode | Privacy | Contact. Nice comments and feedback from Associate Editor. Not a great experience! Will never submit here again. Quick desk reject and no comments of substance (form letter) but no cost of submission. The latter may be fine but it is clear that the referee did not read the paper very carefully. They clearly help the author to improve their paper instead of rejecting it without trying to extract the best. However, the quality of the report is very high and it helps improve the paper a lot. Mark Ramseyer. 11 months for a rejection. It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. The worst experience I ever had in over 20 years. Complete waste of time and money. We do not need dumb editors!! No letter from an Associate Editor, so no idea about who rejected the paper. Will never submit unless the editor is changed to an economist, Referees did not put much efforts. Single report. Sick comments and rejection for no reasons. The AE's letter was useful, although no suggestion what to try next. Overall good experience. Three reports, two reports are with doable suggestions, one is low-quality. Very complementary and helpful reviews. Worked butt off to respond to them. completely ?misread? Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. Recommended field journal, and it was in fact eventually published in the top field journal. Although our paper is rejected by the reviewer, I would be very happy to read the referee report. Entire process takes 1 month. Fair. Not a good referee match given papers subject matter and therefore not very useful comments. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. One referee kept claiming one thing was wrong. 2 was more critical. Many thanks to the editor for most constructive comments. Fast and serious journal. Was a longshot. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Two referee reports. Nice experience. Reminded several times and after waiting 1 year got one referee report. Very fast process. Poor report but good comments from the associate editor, Associate Editor and the reviewer provided excellent feedback, Very fast and easy, but useless reports and editors (which is what I wanted for a quick worthless pub). But the other one was useless; it's like a collection of "minor comments.". more months, before rejection based on superficial comments. Reason given: "not general enough." Prof. Sushanta Mallick handles the paper. Editor decided to reject it. Was not worth waiting that long (this is an understatement). relatively fast, but referees totally uninformed of the literature. and then took another seven months. Go report in 2 days. Referee report was reasonable and improved the manuscript. had to withdraw, Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. All reports are positive. The reason for rejection was that my paper was too specific for their readers. Good experience. Sounds fair. Basically useless, a waste of time. One of the referee reports was sloppy, showing inaccurate reading. Editor read the paper and gave helpful feedback. Dual submission to a conference, the submission fee is quite high. Seems like a sound reason. Editor agreed. Very slow. 19 Jun 2023. A UK guy handles my paper and give me a desk rejection after 3 months. Helpful reports, overall good experience. Very good comments even if he slightly misunderstood the contribution. Rejected but with excellent reports. quick decision by the editor. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. Desk rejection would be normal, but the journal has changed dramatically the orientation towards family firms. Two very thin referee reports. one positive one negative, editor chose to reject. Referee didn't buy identification strategy. JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending). The referee reports were good. One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. This is the letter I sent to the editor of JME: Laughable report (where do they find these clueless idiots?). One Referee wrote nonsense, the other was good, the editor added nonsense. The dynamic is well known and its implications are rather straightforward in this context. That was disappointing. AE decided to reject! Unbelievably slow given their 30-day referee guideline. Editor is a little slow. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. Boo! Two thoughtful refs, one clueless. The revised submission was accepted within a month. Desk rejection within two weeks. 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). Amazing. Desk rejected in 6 days with no explanation. It just decided not to believe the empirical analysis. Avoid if possible. The contribution of the paper as it stands to be insu cient for publication in The Econometrics Journal. Comical journal. (Serious) are you actually worried about AI alignment? Economics Job the other report is empty (rejection). it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. Both have suggestions (one extensive, one less so). After R&R, the referee required one more round of revision. Stay away from JAE. Quick turnaround, helpful comments, will submit again, Desk rejected in less than a week. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). After resubmitting, accepted in 2 weeks without going to referees. Each report was less than 600 words long with 3-4 main comments but not in much dept (not even full references included). One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. Desk/ref rejected. Almost two months for desk reject, no submission refund. The editor rejected the manuscript without any useful comments. Outcome was fair and reports well done, but waiting time was unacceptable and the editor's lettere extremely poor. Editor (Rogerson) makes some encouraging comments but cannot hide the fact that the referees were not really that enthusiastic about the paper, even if they couldn't find much to criticize. Quite slow response for a mid-tier journal. The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! Extremely fast and with 2 high quality RRs. reviewer reports were okay, but the process took so long. Explains longish time to first review. Desk rejected with 1 sentence after 2 months. 3 detailed reports, and a summary from Hendren explaining the rejection. Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. Editor was changed, asked for electronic resubmission and paper got rejected. 2 months between submission and final decision! Very efficient. Accepted, no referee reports. The referee seemed to be familiar with the broad topic of the special issue, but not with the specific subject the paper dealt with (e.g. Useful comments from knowledgeable reviewers. Desk rejected within two weeks. Very unlucky submission: First round Reject and Resubmit. Paper was accepted in 1 month after the submission. Desk reject within 5 days. All of them are much speedier and you will actually get helpful comments that will improve your paper. [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors is only lightly moderated and preserves posters' anonymity. Associate editor rejected on poor grounds. 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. R&R was helpful. The main tasks of the potential candidates would be to carry . Job Market. One very good review, two quite missed points. One week to accept. Seems to be unfit the reviewing editor's preference but the handling editor was kind though. Submitted the paper 11:45. Much improved paper. Paper was poorly read by the referees. 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. Will avoid in the future. Initial review was slow but there was an editor change that may have contributed to this. Very helpful reports. very efficient process and useful reports from editor and referess. Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). It took 3 weeks to get a desk reject letter. The referees' comments were very much on target and thoughtful. All excellent reports, and good suggestions from the co-editor about what to focus on and where to send next. Lousy comments from the Editor in chief. Helpful and competent editor who made clear what were the important points to address. Good reports. Would submit again. Fair experience. Accepted after revision within 1 month. Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School, Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO), Majewska (TSE), Seibel (Zurich), Deng (UMD), Lesellier (TSE), Vanhapelto (TSE), Suzuki (PSU), Leroutier (SSE), Lorentzen (BI Oslo), Guigue (CREST), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Bou Sleiman (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Moreno-Maldonado (CUNEF), Khalifa (AMSE), Kondziella (IIES), Merilinen (ITAM); see https://www.helsinkigse.fi/events/category:job-talk, Assistant/Associate/Full Professor - Environmental Economics, Song (USC), Kwon (Cornell), Sileo (Georgetown), Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Hyuk-soo Kwon (Cornell University), Sean McCrary (University of Pennsylvania), Gretchen Sileo (Georgetown), Stephanie Weber (Yale University), Sadhika Bagga (UT Austin), Ricardo Marto (University of Pennsylvania), Martin Souchier (Stanford University). Incredibly tough process with three rounds of revisions - first round ended up me writing a response as long as the original paper. Deputy Editor rejected the paper with insufficient contribution and a comment that doesn't make sense. this journal is very inefficient in processing submissions and re-submissions. Katz very thoughtful and helpful editor letter. Within a week with no justification. Editor sends paper just to his/her peers with predefined ideas. 1 great, 1 so so, 1 absolutely trash (the referee only argued on the reliability of the benchmark case, which is a well established result in the literature!!!). The model is not in AE's taste. A reviewer gave some thoughtful comments. One very constructive and positive report from economist, and one worst-I-ever-recieved report from a law scholar (maybe). No comments from Katz except go to field journal. The co-editor gave very specific, though difficult requests for the revision. A black bitch barks at East Europe. 2010 . One referee said "take it", two said "we dislike coauthor, he published something similar in psych journal, do not take". Won't be doing that again Actually, it was a Reject and Resubmit because the editor liked the paper, but the reviewer was really harsh and not really understood the paper. Revision accepted three hours after submission. Desk reject in 1 week. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Desk reject after 27 days by Kurt Mitman. The report was very entensive and it required a lot of extra work but it was insightful as well (however, as always, we had to compromise in some things we were not fully convinced the referee was right). Fair referee reports, but I had to wait pretty long. If? Excellent and clear communication with editors. Two fantastic referee reports within 1.5 months. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. Not very useful comments from any of them. Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. Mostly good comments, though not given much detail about main criticism. Very helpful referee report. things slowed down because of covid. desk rejected in 3 days. It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Ali Kutan is the associate editor, finally accepted the paper. 10 days for desk rejection decision. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. Desk rejected in two weeks. Editor highly incompetent. Desk reject after 3 days. Referee reports were quite helpful in refining the paper. Will definitely send again. Advisors: Raquel Fernndez, Martin Rotemberg, Elena Manresa. useless report from "expert" regurgitating my explicitly stated caveats, B.E. Reviews were fair. Very late and vague one page referee report, rejection based on perceived bad fit with journal. So not sure why the editor would say this is "fixable", unless he is trying to say it sucks in a nice way. Extremely long wait at this journal for comments. Quick first response with major r&r. Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. Homepage; Submission fee not refunded. Editor: "Far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal". Not of broad interest. Desk reject after 1 week. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. Helpful comments from referees and editor. One was a paragraph long and basically did a lit review. Quick desk rejection. Two month for two detailed reports. Good reports with decent suggestions. editor(s) provided good comments too. Just didn't seem to believe paper, but without any really good reason. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. A serious fraud: Fake JF and RFS conditional acceptances, "Leftover women" problem hits US dating market, New "Family Ruptures" AER / NBER is rip-off of obscure paper, Schiraldi (LSE) and Seiler (Stanford) false coauthors of AER publication, Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School, Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO). Very good experience, Good experience. Referee reports were of high quality. The referees made good points. No specific comment from the editor. Very Detailed construtive reports. 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. EconJobRumors.com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is a website for academic economists. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. The editor does not respond to emails. A colleague from another school submitted there and also had to wait a long time for very poor quality referee reports. Referees did not show good knowledge of the subject. First round took 2 months. Why don't black people open carry and call it 2nd amendment rights? 3 months for conference decision and 2 months of journal decision. However, he suggested that I submit my paper to a theory journal. Probably he sent the paper to referees because he couldn't desk reject it, but his mind was made-up before hand. Finally withdraw. Good overall experience. Got accepted after 2nd round. is ?so ?poor? Suggest field journal. Waited about a month for the first decision, just a few days for the (very minor) revisions. Not general interest enough. paper is short so 6 months for each round is very long. Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. 1: 1: We have moved! Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. Great comments from the referees and editor. Overall good experience. Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. Bad experience. Terrible referees. Good comments. Editor (Voth) was polite but did not say much. 19. Unfortunately the editor decides to reject the paper on the last round because he has concern about the paper. Very long time for first response. The editor wrote the 2nd report. 2 decent reports. Three months for an "out of scope" decision.