Income Based Apartments Palatka, Fl, Articles E

11 months for a rejection. The referee completely misunderstood a *very* basic primary school model and then went on to criticize and complain about the empirical results. Excellent editorial service from Bruno Biais. Scam. 20 Feb 2023. No way to check on status. Ref needed 6 months to produce a paragraph of a response. Seemed not to like the idea of the paper without actually reading it. Very fast, and really high-quality referee reports, plus the AE's feedback. Not a good experience. Desk rejected in 6 days with no explanation. Nice editor. Referee 2 was completely positive and was clearly knowledgeable of field. One very good report, another one heavily biased against methodology, yet helpful. The second one is ok, but rejects for some peculiar reasons. Took 4 months to report that the article was not a good fit and return without reports. Who are these people?? The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. Even though my paper was rejected, they will be useful to improve the paper prior to resubmission to another journal. Rejection reason shows Meghir did not read the paper, bad editor dull comments. Disappointing experience. Otherwise fine. No substantive comments about the content of the paper at all. Non professionalism of editor and referee: one referee asked to modify the paper and upon seeing the changes did reject saying that I should have done the way it was done in the first place. Poorly managed editorial process. very good experiencefast and helpful comments from the co-editor and two refereesAverage time between the submission and response is about 1.5 months, well run journal. Rejected, but editor and referees were fair. Would submit again. Quality of editing going down. One paragraph report when decision finally made. It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. It was most likely copy-pasted from someone elses decision letter, and I know this because they forgot to change the name on it (yes, I received a decision letter with someone else's name on it). Second round took 30 minutes, from submission to acceptance. Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting Decision based on 1 one-paragraph review that didn't refer to anything specific in the paper. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. Useful reports and fast turnaround. 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) Second report very good. When pressed, editor said we weren't doing the same things as everyone else. Single ref report had three very minor questions. Managing the academic job market. At this point, the editor asked us to review the abstract and the highlights. Horner is a disaster! Rejection based on technical point, which could be fixed withing 2 weeks. Reject. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. At the end, I got two reports; one helpful, the other garbage. Instead, the reviewer says you did not cite a literature that is totally beside the point, the main concept of your paper is not mentioned not even once in that literature. Overall, pretty speedy given my submission coincided with end of year grading season and winter holidays in the US. Heckman handled paper. No reimburment of submission fee ($130). Fast decision after resubmit. Desk reject took four days. Quick response within three days. Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. your paper, after some updating to reflect the recent complementary literature, would be more appropriate for a more specialized journal. Welcome to the Academic Jobs Wiki. Had a paper published there recently. Research Assistant (Pre-Doc) Law and Economics. This is why our profession sucks. Reports are not very detailed, but generally comments are fair. Coming off of a failed R&R at a higher ranked journal. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. Editor (Voth) was polite but did not say much. Took seven weeks to get these reviews, pretty efficient journal. Fast process, but very poor reviewer report. 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. It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. Shame on Co-Editor. Very quick rejection, but I received a nice response from one of the co-editors. 2 rounds after which referee recommended acceptance, but editor (Chakravorty) kept the paper for 7(!) Very good reports and editor was clear about what were most important points to improve in the revision. Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago. Useless referee reports--one was just a single short paragraph. The editor barely read the paper and decided to just reject it At least it was quick response - 11 days. Technical issues handled by non-experts. 1 months for desk reject. The second was more critical. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Good report. 2 poor quality reports after 8 months of being under review. Tough referee process, won over 3, 4th still had doubts but Editor pushed ahead. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. Hello! It was a rejection but the editor (Abramitzky) read the paper and provided some additional comments that were helpful. Very slow, but fair process overall. Good overall experience. very professional; some referees had good points; should have spent more time polishing the paper before submitting. Really unfortunate waste of time. My first ever publication. What a terrible journal. Will submit again. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. Good reports - detailed and constructive. Two rounds of review. The referee report was very poor. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. Waste of submission fee. Desk rejection came in 10 days. The referee reports were also awful. Decision was made in 45 days. One very good report, the other OK. Avoid at all costs, International Review of Economics and Finance. Generic comment of the editor. Post an advertisement. One report was very poor and full of bsh*t while the other was good. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. I heard back really quickly with helpful comments. 3rd review was pending. Fast desk reject. It took too long, I do not know if I would submit there again. He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. Refs gave some okay minor comments but no big, subtantive critiques. Fast process and 2 helpful ref. I understand there is variability in this process, but it was a terrible experience. Super fast handling by Pro. Editor said he is sorry for the wait still waiting for the outcome of the second round. There was no mistake. Two referees. Under one month for one very brief report saying not good enough for the journal and a completely indecipherable AE report. 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!!!). Almost zero substantive comments on the technical part and not surprising that it was sloppy handling given that it was Pop-Eliches who was the co-editor. Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. Quick response. The other referee was also good and liked the paper. The editor said there was issues with finding referees. Economic Theory Bulletin. The report that was on fence did not understand some of the points made in the paper, as his biggest concern was addressed in the introduction itself. Write any form of equation and you're skewered! Probably the fastest journal I've had experience with. Reasonable response. Good experience. On its face, the referee provided a good report, but once I dug into the details, it was clear he didn't understand my identification strategy. After two rounds all the referee agreed to publish the paper. Good experience, worth the 100$ :). Meaningless reviews. Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA)Berkeley - USA, Director of Economics and Data Brief comment from the editor. Editor chose to follow the suggestion of the AE. 2 Reports. Form letter. 2 weeks for desk rejection. Overall, bad experience. The editor clearly had a look at least at the introduction and gave encouraging comments. Job Market Paper: Local Polynomial Estimation of Time-Varying Parameters in GMM. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a papers contribution. Reports were of moderate quality. Short straight-to-the point referee report with a few nice points, no bullc*ap. Editor followed the second report. Unfortunately the paper is rejected but I hope the reports help you improve the paper for another journal. Editor rejected because paper topic (public finance) is not what tey are currently looking for. terrible experience, after submission my paper was not sent out to referees for more than 6 months. Editor: "Far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal". Probably just a grad student who could only understand calculations. We sent two more emails about the status of the paper and did not get a response from the office. One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. Four refereed. paper is short so 6 months for each round is very long. Took about two weeks. Helpful referee reports. Editor clearly read the paper, sent a long email telling me how much he liked it but that it would likely run into trouble with referees. Editor then read the paper and rejected it. Reason for rejection was editor thought paper belonged in `less selective' journal. withdrew the paper after contacting the journal twice. One of them was very detailed. Good experience. Editor was very kind. 12.5 euro (exclusive of VAT) for each hour it sat with them. Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Economics of Food Consumption and Distribution. Third report seemed written by a sage speaking in amharic, most statements were elliptical in nature, and we were left wondering what the referee's point had been. Two referee reports. The journal is higher than B. The paper is not of the interest of SCW readers! Editor was also very helpful. Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports. Rather uninformative feedback: feeling that it is not suitable for publication and unlikely to be favorably reviewed. Editor felt like the requests made by reviewers were too significant to warrant an R&R, but we did eventually expand the study and it was reconsidered as a new submission. 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Helpful comments. Tough but fair referee reports. Absolutely pathetic. One paragraph that dismissed four years of work. Referees did not bother to read the paper. I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided. Will not submit here again. Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. Desk rejected within 1 week. The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. Entire process takes 1 month. I don't know what to add. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. Took way to long for three one page poor quality reports. On this basis the paper is unsuitable for JAPE and the decision is to reject the paper. Amit Khandelwal desk rejected a RCT health paper in 2 days with no specific comment..no refund of submission fee, I do not belong to their club, Very quick turnaround (~4 days), encouraging response suggesting field journals. This is designed to reduce the overall turnaround time for the journal, especially given the high volume of submissions." Two useless reports for a paper that has been accepted by another journal of general interest. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. Editor sat on completed reports for 2 months to give a two sentence rejection response. Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. 2 months after first submission of manuscript. Referee reports are interesting and constructive. About 3 weeks turnaround. Overall very good experience. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. If you want a fair treatment - stay away from this journal. One report very useful, and the other two not that much. Very good experience all around. Poorly managed. reports. 6 months was a lot to wait for one good report though Good feedback. The editor did not even get that the comments were wrong. Efficient process, stuck to advertised timings. One great, very helpful report; one report that made an honest effort, but wasn't useful; one report that was one paragraph long and littered with spelling mistakes. Actually took nearly 15 months. Editor also read the paper and took the call - explained that the paper was better suited at a good field journal given referee assessments of contribution to literature. Good comments from the editor. Near-perfect experience. True, no time wasted, just the $125 submission fee. 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. Two days to desk reject, no comments, just boilerplate. Great outcome. Do not offer any innovative technique. referee is very fast. The most underutilized channel is Paid Search. Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. Referee did not bother to read the paper. All reports are positive. Economics Job Market. It took them 10 months to say anything and at the end even though the referees asked for revisions and were positive the editor rejected the paper. Useful comments from the editor (Stefan Nagel). 14 days to desk reject, worthless generic email that said nothing on why it was rejected, merely that they "get lots of papers. Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. 2 reviewers, 1 poor, 1 quite demanding and useful. Nice words from the editor. The editor was good. unreasonable report, the referee imposed a t-stat of at least 5 or 6 for an empirical study. Both reviewers were positive suggested R&R. Desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. Overall, a very fair process. Fast turn around with great referee reports that significantly improved the paper. Referee comments were pretty minor. Efficient and fair. Some warm words from the editor. Transfer from another Elsevier journal - additional round of R&R but easily satisfied and made the paper better. She said only 1 (very short but with no objections) of 3 of the referees responded and was not able to find new referees. Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. Ref reports both frank and helpful. One felt like it was literally written 30 minutes before the deadline. Obviously an inevitably subjective decision, but given this, the handling was very fair. One review was good, and helped to improve the paper, the other one (recommended rejection) was raising many peripheral issues. One referee suggests alternative data sources for robustness even though it took as a year to hand-collect the original data. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). No flyouts yet. All the referees understood what I did in great detail. Overall good experience. Very efficient and fast. ANyway, I think this is a risk when submitting to general interest journals. Economics Job Market Threads. Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit. Reports have very clear constructive instructions and fast response. Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. half a page report. desk rejection within 1 week. Good reports. Excellent Editorial Comments. Editor couldn't find referees, rejected and claimed two reports but only one sent. The Referee Report was very helpful and quite positive. Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. rejection after 9 months without any useful comments. two years is a bit too long, especially given that it will take more than a year before the paper appears in the journal. Grad student who manages inbox for ed took bad review at face value. Two useful reports and one garbage report thrashing the paper. Not enough of a contribution for JPE, suggested AEJs. I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. Both referees are bad at econometrics. It seems to me that this was an easy way for the new Editor to reject the paper! No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. Very late and vague one page referee report, rejection based on perceived bad fit with journal. Went from reject/resubmit to revise resubmit 1, revise resubmit 2, finally accepted. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. Very quick response from Editor (Otrok) after revision. Two decent referee reports. Seriously, avoid this journal. desk rejection because it is not a good fit and i am asked to send it to an economic journal --- while i mainly discussed with a very nice sociologist when writing this paper. One excellent and detailed (5pages) referee report which helped a lot in revising the paper to a much higher level. Desk rejected within a week, no fee refunds. Proved to be quite true. One is OK, other one is exteremly negative. if we go by his saying, then all finance articles are purely pointless. Absolutely idiotic low-quality comments. The letter from the editor suggests that he/she did not have a firm grasp of the paper. Very helpful referee reports. Way too slow though. Will not consider it again. Actually, 57 months in total. It took 2.5 months from initial submission to receiving three OK reviews. Long wait though. 3 polite reports say it is interesting but too simple for aer. Candidate Job Market Roster: Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. Probably he sent the paper to referees because he couldn't desk reject it, but his mind was made-up before hand. It was completely incoherent. View Board. The editor (George Weebly) made inconsistent statements that did not match with the statments in the paper or from the refrees.The referees made good comments. Rejected after one round of review despite all referee comments being addressed. reports: 1 ridiculous, 1 useless, 1 useful, 6 months from initial submission to acceptance. Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). But editor is very good, One referee report with no constructive comments. frustrating, because paper not assigned to the editor who works in my field. The second one is more critical and seems to be angry by the fact that I'm not citing his work. Also very fast. Given all that has happened with JPE in recent years, don't think I will waste my time and money with them again. the comment above was for another journals. Desk rejected in less than a week. All in all it was a fair rejection and a good experience overall. Desk rejected in a month. In all the rejection was fair. One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor. Disappointing. Editor suggested JIE. Desk rejected within 3 days with idiotic comments, as usual. Great experience. Detailed reports, 2 negative, 1 positive; nice letter from co-editor. Overall positive experience. The paper is now much stronger. superficial comment. Unbelievably slow given their 30-day referee guideline. One referee seemed inexperienced and little informative comments. Quite good reports and sufficiently fast process. Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal. low-quality referee reports. Please post listings by subject area. In hindsight, submitted the paper too prematurely. I pulled the paper and send it elsewhere. Quick desk reject after less than 24 hours without comments, annoying given the submission fee. Rejection after 3 days. One very low quality and unfriendly report. Will never submit to this journal again. Editor slept on the paper's submission history and the reviewer's dishonesty. avoid. Accepted after 3 R&R. Mean and non-sense comments from one referee so that the editor had to apologize.