- angela lansbury last performance /
- gorilla stone bloods paperwork /
- worst places to live in oregon /
- econ job market rumors wiki
econ job market rumors wiki
Editor efficient, but strange experience: Two referees were very favorable, but the third referee rejected by quoting a "flaw" which was in fact correct. one positive, one flat reject review, the editor decided to reject. Very constructive suggestions. Editor desk rejected after a couple of weeks due to lack of fit. Editor provided no additional comments. Fast. Took 9 months for acceptance. If you are in a hurry or need one to fill you CV, then choose it.. editor very helpful. One useful report out of three. A bit long but very helpful referee report. 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. The editor suggested a field journal in a field that had nothing to do with our paper. A disappointment. Which is BS because paper on the same topic was published a couple of months earlier in EJ. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO) Editor seemed not to have read the paper. I'll definetly will submit again. Accepted, no referee reports. Weird decision as the paper was not far from being accepted at a better journal. R&R was helpful. The final version of the proof was more elegant as a result, I am very appreciative of the reviewers and the editor. Editor rejected within less than 10 days. Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. One ref gave R&R; the other two were rejections for not being of sufficient interest for AEJM. Although paper is accepted, i would hardly deal with them in the future. He suspects he could not understand a yota. Referee was constructive and provided helpful comments. Horrible experience! rejected in exactly three weeks - editor said that the topic only gets published in JEBO if there's a special issue (which mine was not connected with). Deemed too narrow for the journal. Will never submit unless the editor is changed to an economist, Referees did not put much efforts. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. 2 very good reports and one poor report. The other review was somewhat on point in its criticism, though I can'r give him/her the credit as the shortcoming was itself mentioned in the paper. Got the rejection after 185 days, referees like to wait until the last couple of days to read papers! Desk reject two days after I submitted the manuscript. I had. No comments from Katz except go to field journal. Desk rejection in 3 days. -- Divided referee reports. They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. 1 report, minor issues, rejected. 1 report was nonsensical and tipped it to rejection, two very weak reports, editor obviously did not read the paper, overall very bad experience. The referee made also several nonsensical remarks about the methodology giving a signal that s/he hasnt thoroughly went through the paper. Three tough rounds which made the paper better. Still not a fan of this journal. 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. the revision requirements seem achievable. I read on EJMR how clubby and unfortunately British this journal is, but never expected it to be true. No refund. Rather pleasant experience. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Largely fair points. The editor does not respond to emails. Referees' comments were useful. Good experience with helpful AE and reviewer. editor obviously read the paper (indicated by reference to appendix figure in the letter); nice and helpful comments. One low quality (taste-based) referee report. 2 months, the article is still under internal review DPR had my manuscript for over a year, and never even got it under review. Osbourne rejected following a 6-7 line bs report by adding his own very cheap comments. THREE MONTHS! Search by name. Considering withdrawing. Too slow. This would be fine if desk-reject was motivated by "not a good fit" or such. Desk reject within 5 days. 5 weeks for a desk reject. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. Overall, I was very pleased with the process. Still, I have to contact them again after 9 weeks because they did nothing with my paper. One very good referee report, based on which the paper is improved significantly. Some good comments though. Avoid if you can. The editor wrote the 2nd report. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. Rejected for not have a theoretical contribution. Both suggested rejection. Editor and co-editor are extremely nice and supportive. Initial response for R&R was quite fast, but the second response after the resubmission took quite a long time, and it seems that the paper was just sitting at the editor's desk for more than a month before they were assigned back to the referees. Job Market. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. After waiting for 6 months received one crap report which is absolute garbage! (Shouldn't these cases be desk-rejected instead of being rejected after 6 months?). Ref reports of high quality, mention half a dozen suggestions for robustness which perhaps amounted to too much for the editor to let this go to revision. 1 Month from Submission to a very positive R&R. 3 months to R&R; 2 weeks for second round; 1 week for final acceptance. Desk reject in 1 week. DK carefully read and gave constructive feedback. Very short to the point referee report. Fair and useful comment by the editor. Editor cites two but only sends one. If you want a fair treatment - stay away from this journal. Editor decided to not even send the revised paper back to the referees. Waited 6 months for one report, from which it was clear that the referee hadn't even read the paper properly. 2010 . Too narrow-minded editor. Not a good referee match given papers subject matter and therefore not very useful comments. He, however, had the balls to apologize for the delay. Will submit again. Quite annoyed at this journal - AE provided verbatim the referee rejection from another submission journal from three months prior. Saying that the topic is not general enough. Welcome to the EconTrack Job Market Information Board, a service hosted by the AEA. one referee pointed to their own working paper which is still not published (jan 2017), Positive: 1 high quality referee report and some comments by the co-editor; Negative: 2 other referee reports of medium to very low quality. Worst experience with a journal so far. Desk reject after 3 days. Editor sat on completed reports for 2 months to give a two sentence rejection response. One detailed report. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). One excellent referee report, one terrible. One report very solid and useful, another (two-paragraph one) looks confusing. Sounds fair. reviewer reports were okay, but the process took so long. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. 2 months after first submission of manuscript. Would submit here again now that I know what to expect. They kept the application fee. Pleasant experience. Outcome was fair and reports well done, but waiting time was unacceptable and the editor's lettere extremely poor. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). 3 weeks to desk reject. One referee was thoughtful and recommended acceptance; Second referee asked for more results; AE agreed with the 1st referee. Horrible reports. 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. ~5 weeks. The editor rejected the manuscript without any useful comments. I did what was asked, and the revised paper was accepted by the editor after one week. Would submit again. Editor sat on completed reports for 3 months before making a decision. One associate editor recommended rejection and no other comments/suggestions, but one referee provided very useful comments and s/he seems to be positive about the paper(I post one row which has the wrong info on journal name, should be JPE rather than QJE). This, of course, is useless. I am currently studying the interaction between technological and demographic changes and the labor market. Editor was Mogde. Total turn around time was about 40 days. I revised as a new submission based on comments from a previous reviewer at the journal, referee report was short, but demonstrated expertise, could have addressed all of the comments but ultimately rejected under KS. Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. The other report was useless. Desk rejected within 10 days. Comments were meant for another paper. Editor also gave comments. Extremely helpful comments that significantly improved the paper in the end. Comments were helpful. Two years ago, I had a different paper rejected by EER, with two good referee reports and an AE negative about it. Young is defined by the year of the first publication in any form. Galor and the referees felt the contribution wasn't substantial enough. Editor uninterested. And some more nice words. Job Market Candidates. Fair decision. Finally, I have now wothdrawn my paper. One absolutely incompetent referee. Rejection reason: not general interest enough. Third referee was slow and did not provide public report (he caused the delay). If Minnesotas one of the least woke departments, why does EJMR hate it so much? Reviewer number two said the paper had no relevant contribution beyond those of a paper recently published in a top journal. Mostly decent reports raising fair points, OK experience. Dest rejected in three days. Reasonable. Some nice words from the editor. Quick and professional handling by the editor. Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". Basically if you don't make everyone happy on the first round you stand no chance at this journal. Unacceptable waiting time. The paper was triying to test unit roots on capacity utilisation for a cross-section of countries to test some macro models; so it did stuff that even a Master's can understand. multiple rounds, one of round took about a year. Comments were helpful. Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal. Actually took nearly 15 months. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. Followed up on them, sent it to another journal, and got accepted very quickly. The main tasks of the potential candidates would be to carry . Very late and vague one page referee report, rejection based on perceived bad fit with journal. Welcome to the Academic Jobs Wiki. Rejection reason shows Meghir did not read the paper, bad editor dull comments. Expected better, expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision. Smooth process. Good experience, worth the 100$ :). No progress in six months although I send emails to push. Fast and friendly. Desk reject after 27 days by Kurt Mitman. I agree with most of the comments, but the bar for publication was exceptionally high, considering his relatively low position in the journal ranking. Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. But I'm a nobody. Horrible experience. ", Took two months to desk reject, although initial email assured of a very short response time for desk rejecttions, Desk rejected because of formatting issue but invited to resubmit; took a few days for desk rejectioin. Desk reject after 2 months. First response in less than 3 months. Very good referee and associate editor report. Bad experience. Solid referee report and very quick response. Desk reject after few days with some useful suggestions. Fair decision. Editor sends paper just to his/her peers with predefined ideas. Short unhelpful referee reports which ask to cite referees. Just that paper did not meet the bar. Fast and fair enough. Sent email to the corresponding editor after 6 months review, but no response. recommended Journal of Development Economics. Editor rejected based on that. The editor VanHoose made some good comments though. Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! Highly recommend this journal for a paper that wouldn't make it to top 5. Zero constructive comments! Yep, it is. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. The rejection was fine but took too long for a desk reject. 3 more months for two reports containing blatant mistakes and outrageous claims that have nothing to do with the paper. Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. best submission experience. Referee makes a factually inaccurate claim about previous research, and misinterprets interaction terms. Overall good experience. Will submit again. It has been about 16 months now. Finally withdraw. very comprehensive report. will definitely try it again next time. never submit to this journal again. Fast. Hollifield copy-pasted unsubstantiated claims in rejection letter apparently without even having a look on the paper. It is a disgrace to the profession reflects poorly on the journal. It seems to me that this was an easy way for the new Editor to reject the paper! R&R after 3-4 months. Fast, but absolutely useless reports. The editor, Gideon Saar, was lazy and did not read the paper. Very helpful referee reports. The decision is quite fair and briefly justified. 2 reports minimal work, 1 report some work. When we inquired after 6 month, we were told to be patient. Said they would refund the submission fee, which is nice. One very good referee report, one useless one. Worst experience ever nearly one year just to hear "not much new, therefore reject" 100 bucks for nothing. 1st round 2 1/2 months. Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. Somehow it took a whole year for the referees to write short and horribly useless reports which show they did not even bother to read the introduction. SVAT is a full service firm in the areas of bookkeeping, accounting, tax and small . Very bad experience. Mark Watson was the editor. I don't know what to add. They should just ask me $60. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. A very pleasant experience after 5 rounds of really bad reviews. Not a fit to the journal! In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. Editor should have told him to take a hike much earlier, especially when other refs suggested accept. Thought already in literature. Very fast and fair process, despite the negative outcome. One synthetic but straight to the point referee report, asking for very specific and reasonable corrections to the paper. Seems the process is very efficient with the new editorial board, Fantastic experience: fast and very good comments. Happy with process. The editor had read the paper and provided guidance. Reviewers' concerns are reasonable but they didn't provide helpful suggestions. Quick response. The Editor was quite polite. Two referee reports. Awful experience. 6 months to receive half-assed & useless referee reports and request for major revisions. People need filters. Chiara Paz and Alice Wang. Decent referee reports. Quick desk rejection. AER, JPE), but taste a factor. 4 months for first report, 5 months for second, only to be rejected by referee. Took a while, but great experience overall. Horrible experience, and it is not even that good a journal! 1 R&R round. Editor: "Far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal". I don't know what to add. it.?I? The reports were good and helpful. Very positive experience. Overall great experience. Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response. Very fast decisions. However, I had issues with production, they uploaded the wrong version of my paper etc, and it looked like it wasn't even copy edited. Received 3 high-quality referee reports within 4 months. Painfully crushing rejection, as all referees agreed it was a good paper, but had some valid concerns about length and possible general interest contribution. Came back within 4 hours, nice letter by Katz with suggestions of where to submit, 5 days for a desk reject. Two reports, both harsh and recommended reject. You can even not see these wordings in Game of Thrones. Editor (Collins) might read the paper, but did not say much. Single-blind review system for a 250 bucks fee. A bit slow but overall a good experience. Stay away! 1 serious person pushing his method. Good reports that were specific and helpful. Ref reports were okay. Two referee reports were really good. Good experience overall, only took 2 weeks, two short reports, one very useful. 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. 2/3 ref reports were detailed and useful. High quality, detailed ref. Editor provided useful feedback and a subsequent version of the manuscript was sent out for peer review. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. We give the editors one week to judge the overall contribution and if acceptable send your paper to an associate editor.