Excellent referee reports, with useful input from the editor (Auerbach) regarding how to handle them. good referee reports (1 yes, 2 no). Another 2 months and a second round of very minor revisions. Great management by editorial board although disappointing result. Very good and useful referee reports. The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. Amazing. Held my paper for a full year and rejected it on a split decision with one ref suggesting an RR and the other a reject. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. (It doesn't seem like a club journal. The Editor was quite polite. 3 reports, very quick. Most inefficient handling ever. desk rejected after more than 2 months, very generic motivation (try a field journal), they took the submission fees and thanked me a lot for the payment! General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,806) Micro Job Rumors (15,245) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,027) China Job Market (103,534) The editor barely read the paper and decided to reject! Submitted in 2014. Helpful and competent editor who made clear what were the important points to address. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. Desk rejected after more than 5 months, avoid, International Review of Applied Economics, receive first response within 2 weeks. Editor was Imran Rasul, extremely professional and competent. And he did not find the topic interesting. Re-submission took a week to be finally be accepted. Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. Referees asked for reasonable stuff. Editor was very kind. 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). long waiting time. Two years ago, I had a different paper rejected by EER, with two good referee reports and an AE negative about it. Stay away! Reports very helpful. No indication that the paper was read. 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). 10 lines not even sure they read the paper. Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. Do not offer any innovative technique. the ?author? Do you really understand American history? Took about two weeks. Fast and serious journal. This journal is a joke. Resubmitted after 3+ months of work, but replies to referees went lost and paper got rejected. Constructive and very specific. Not sure why we didn't get desk rejected. The editor handling the paper had no idea about the literature. After this thrid email, the paper moves up and it takes 11 weeks to get referee rejection (quality fo the two reports: poor, they wont improve my paper). Waited 2 months for the paper to be assigned to an editor. So do keep an eye on the paper and cotnact the editor if necessary. One useful report and the other less so. Good reports and no nitpicking on the revision. The site, commonly known as econjobrumors.com (its full name is Economics Job Market Rumors), began as a place for economists to exchange gossip about who is hiring and being hired in the . Desk reject in 1 week. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. Reflects really poorly on the journal to keep this guy. Fast and friendly. Comments just so-so. One nice and one not nice referee. Would submit again. Paper desk rejected in 4 days. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. only one report (quite helpful). No response for seven and a half months. High quality reports and useful comments from the editor. the editor was helpful and nice though. Finance Job Rumors (489,470) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,758) Micro Job Rumors (15,233) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,523) Industry Rumors (40,348) Good reports. Quick turnaround with two okay reports. The peer review process was fast. The submission and revision process was great and timely. Sum up: Fast but not cool, Editor. 3 constructive and useful reports. Though nothing extremely deep, comments were of acceptable quality. the comment above was for another journals. Very good experience; desk reject with highly valuable and fair comments by the co-editor within 10 days. Submission fee not refunded. Helpful editor. Reject. Overall efficient process. fluent ?in? What is left to say? Don't think they even bothered reading the first page. Giles is a great editor. Great comments from editor. The referee report was more appropriate for R&R. Got 3 ref reports - 1 RR 2 reject. Complained. Accepted version was greatly improved. a positive experience, all in all. Clearly there were 2 initial refs: 1 suggested R&R, the other suggested rejection. After revision was done the AE decided to reject without sending to referees! Editor overturned referee's decisions with poor justification. I read on EJMR how clubby and unfortunately British this journal is, but never expected it to be true. The editor said that enjoyed the paper very much but the contributon is not sufficiently broad for a general interest journal as JHR and fits better into a labour journal. 7 months for 2 reviews (and one reviewer was already familiar with paper). Apply for Market Access Asia region manager job with HPE in Taipei, Taipei City, 11568. After one round of revision, two of the three reviewers accepted the paper and one requested at best minor revision. Paper too good for their journal. One very good set of comments. Fairly quick acceptance. Very efficient process, paper improved with referee comments. One very good report, another one heavily biased against methodology, yet helpful. Generally not 5-star experience but worth submitting there if your paper is relevant. 10 months is too long to get back. Very helpful reports and overall a smooth process. New . Great turnaround I guess? I've been around the block a few times, published in top 5, and most of my articles get cited considerably more than average for the journal. Good handling by the editor (Reis). Engineering at HPE Empty report. Based on the large volume of submissions we receive bla bla, Unfathomably long time to first decision, referee comments impleid the paper was not read diligently, despite being just 4-5 pages. After another three months, the paper was reject on the basis of a presumed 2nd referee report, only with a few lines, that says the paper is "well structured, well written, and deploys sound econometric methodology", but "does not add value to the existing literature". Referee claims no revisements were made after substantial revisements were made and detailed. A reviewer gave some thoughtful comments. Checked my e-mail and editor rejected the paper. Finance Job Rumors (489,474) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,762) Micro Job Rumors (15,233) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,523) Industry Rumors (40,348) got the impression that the reviewer did not read the paper and decided to dispute the review, the dispute process took slightly more than 1 month and the new reviewer sided with the old reviewer. Harrington and the anonymous reviewer. No referee reports. Two very constructive reports. The editor is responsive. Very, very disappointed! Decent reports. Not so much from the Associate Editor. Amazing efficiency. Very fast, two high quality referee reports. 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. both reviewers rejected for different reasons, reports were overall helpful but some comments showed lack of understanding. Full of informative/wrong comments. Two helpful reports. Excellent, useful comments by editor, but report was not helpful (as correctly noted by editor) and 5.5 months is a long time for one report. Explains longish time to first review. Submitted in 2012. Lowest quality referee reports ever received. Reject and resubmit. One referee said "take it", two said "we dislike coauthor, he published something similar in psych journal, do not take". The time to response is not long as well. Excellent Editorial Comments. Horrible process. 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. Fast turnaround. Ridicolous report: 3 lines where the referee asked to address "geopolitical" issues. Coming off of a failed R&R at a higher ranked journal. Efficient. Helpful referee reports. Not much to complain about. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. Professional and useful oversall. Desk reject after 30 hours, helpful comments from the editor. Desk/ref rejected. High Quality Editing. Timely, informed, and critical. One useless report, but the other one is decent. Six weeks for response. Great experience. (Shouldn't these cases be desk-rejected instead of being rejected after 6 months?). editing team is real class act. Very slow, but fair process overall. Editor provided useful feedback and a subsequent version of the manuscript was sent out for peer review. Mean and non-sense comments from one referee so that the editor had to apologize. Receive reports from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. Editor chose to follow the suggestion of the AE. The final version of the proof was more elegant as a result, I am very appreciative of the reviewers and the editor. 9 days. Finance Job Rumors (489,527) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,815) Micro Job Rumors (15,246) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,029) China Job Market (103,535) Industry Rumors (40,351) Rejected with one referee report in just under a month. interesting and polite reports. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. The whole process was fast and streamlined. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. Two referees. Lengthy, in-depth reports. Referees obviously did not read the paper. Complete waste of time.. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), Reports not very helpful, paper not in journal scope. However, it would probably help to read some of Joanna Lahey's work to get a sense of the state-of-art methods with these audit studies." thorough but not brutal enough - the paper was not very a contribution at all at the time and needed a much harsher rejection, seriously, referee reports were very thorough and demonstrated expertise, rejections were fair - just wish I would have gotten these reviewers the first time I submitted the paper. also received comments from the old reviewer that were better than the first review. Replied within a week but editor clearly read the paper and identified main points which, however, seemed not important to him to warrant publication in RES. The reports were largely useless. Rejected in 24 hrs, no reason given. others ref reports okay. 5 days. A second round of minor revision was requested. Submitted a taxation paper that was outside of their comfort zone. Same referee as for a previous submission to a high-ranked journal. Very fast and the submission fee is relatively cheap and even cheaper for grad students. One recommended reject, the other R&R. Desk reject in a week. Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. One referee gave lots of great comments, while the other referee was pretty much useless. 3 reports. Editor read the paper, added some comments of her own. This decision is not in any sense a negative comment on the quality of the paper. Overall, good experience. The other referee was of low quality. It appears they don't like overly technical papers (it's an interdisciplinary journal so depends on who the editor is at the time - if not an economist, then avoid). Avoid this shitty journal. Fair process overall. Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. Very quick rejection (24 hours), with nice words from the editor, who obviously read the paper. Both editor and referees liked the paper, comments from referees are on the point and constructive. This was after a 6 month wait and emails to the editor to follow up. According to the editor, the paper has some merit, but is too specialized for EL. Even though my paper was rejected, they will be useful to improve the paper prior to resubmission to another journal. Very good comments even if he slightly misunderstood the contribution. Professional reports. Will not consider again. 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). The journal is higher than B. The reviewer didn't even bother to read after page 8. The editor provided one. Editor said there are two reports but I only received one. Two referee reports; one high quality, one very low quality. Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. Awesome experience. Very good experience. Happy with the whole process. Split reports but very clear advice from editor. 1 month desk reject. After ref rejection at an AEJ submitted here we followed editors suggestion and submitted to JUE. Katia Meggiorin. Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA)Berkeley - USA, Director of Economics and Data He/she also asked unrelated information such as why the market offer two similar contracts, which is not the scope of the study. Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever. That's not true. Very weak report. Rejected with 2 reviews on the grounds of insufficient contribution to literature. Rejected within 4 days with a decent explanation. One (very) useful report and one useless, 5 months from submission to acceptance, Desk reject in an hour. Not cool, 6 pages report trying to find reasons to reject, another report was copy paste from 3 previous submissions stating I dont belive your assumptions. Good referee report + some comments from AE. Overall very good experience. Clearly he had read the paper.
Zach Ducheneaux South Dakota,
Soy Hull Pellets California,
Articles E
