econ job market rumors wiki

One positive and one negative. Two referee reviews. This journal is a joke. Desk rejected in 2 weeks, editor recommended sending the paper to a field journal. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. At least, you expect some quality report. Very happy LRM made it past desk. The Editor was quite polite. Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. Results not important enough to a broad audience. Took quite long for a desk rejection. The AE also provided his own review. Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. Excellent ref report. The editor decided major revision. Suggested a top field journal! desk rejection within 1 week. The whole process lasts less than a year from submission to acceptance. Editor rejected without comments. No other comments. Wilson inform me, on average, EI first decision is in 67 days, but my six months delay is not due to neglect (YEAH RIGHT! Not a r, Contribution: Single country Sample and OLS production, International Review of Law and Economics, very helpful comments which improved the quality of the paper; time between resubmit and acceptance: 6 days! AWFUL editorial work. EconJobRumors.com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is a website for academic economists. Pretty well run, can't complain. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. 6 months to first response, then a two sentence ref report, one sentence of which was clarified extremely quickly and one that entailed a ton of extra work. Both reports made non-sense suggestions (not sure if read through), editor did not read the article. Paper denounced an error on widely cited paper (unfairly comparing bootstrap vs asypmtotic theory with a nonpivot statistic!). Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. Full of informative/wrong comments. Ever. Upon inspection these papers are only superficially related. EM suggested transfer to a different journal (which desk rejected after 2 hours). AE also helpful. Process was too long given that only minor changes were required on R&R. Editor took two weeks to unconditionally accept. Recommended to aim for field journals. Another 2+ month desk reject. Neither of the two reviewers seemed t have read the paper. Editor rejected after two positive referee reports. Desk rejected in the 24 hour window. 2 referee reports: 1 very detailed recommending revisions; other useless. Extremely slow journal and not well managed journal. Fast and clean. I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. Overall positive experience. First referee constructive and positive. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. Fast desk reject (Ciccone), after few days. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. Took about two weeks. After 7 months of waiting. Brief, ignorant, editor's letter. After more data were collected, the editor said "a referee suggested empirical work was not serious enough." Two weak reports. Expected a lot better from this journal. They said they could not find reviewers. The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. Will submit again. At the time the editor had still the paper sitting on his desk. The revision review was quite fast too. (I submitted almost the same paper to another journal). 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. Strong referees. 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." Poor referee. Two referee reports, one engaged and constructive, the other written in incredibly poor English that took issue with some phrases I used. 2 years and counting, for a small paper. Horrible reports. Sometimes Batten took a long time to make a decision after the reviews were completed, but he was fair. JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending). The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. Referee clearly did not read paper closely because the bulk of his (limited) comments focused on why I don't address an issue that is addressed prominently in the introduction. EJM - Econ Job Market Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. Poor referee reports. After 12 months the paper was not even sent out to review or rejected despite 10 emails. 14 days for a desk rejection. Extremely fast and with 2 high quality RRs. Poor report! After "awaiting referee selection" for 4 months, I sent a query and got one referee report. I spent less time and less effort revising 30 pages papers in other similar ranked journals than in EL, Excellent process and editor provided useful comments and guidance, Very pleasant experience very quick and the report professional. Editor desk rejected after a couple of days due to lack of fit. The other reviewer I suspect of being a graduate student with not so good comments. good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. Horrible experience, and it is not even that good a journal! We will not be making any further offers this year. Just thoroughly unprofessional report. only one report (quite helpful). One very good referee report (I feel he has pubs in AER, JPE) and one useless report (he doesn't know anything about business economics). After revision was done the AE decided to reject without sending to referees! Very efficient journal, 3 very helpful reports from a coeditor and 2 referees. Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. 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. We'll see. May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. Will never submit there again. Odd journal but overall pleased with the result if not every part of the process. Decent referee reports. Referee was constructive and provided helpful comments. 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. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. 2 quality ref reports + brief comments by editor. Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. The referee report was very poor. Market Access Asia region manager in Taipei, Taipei City, 11568 Will not consider it again. Time to accept less than 1 year. Have contacted the editorail asistant three times (startung six weeks after submission) who said she would remind the editor. Desk rejected in 2 days. Big lie. Comments dubious at best. Editor read and carefully considered the paper. Unacceptable waiting time. journal has a reputation for being out of the mainstream of econ. 3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal. Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. Desk rejected within 7 days. Cantillon is not a good editor. Poor reports. The editor rejects the paper and I think it is fair, but I do see that the paper can be improved based on these reports. My first submission in AE and it is the best experience ever. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. Very disappointed at the editor who made a decision based on such a low quality report. 2 week desk reject. Very unprofessional. And the whole process took us 8 months. Would send here again. A form-letter rejection from Katz. Very negative experience. We thought we'd receive useful reports even if we got rejected, but this turned out to be a total waste of time. One positive report, one negative. The editor was not helpful at all. 1 report was nonsensical and tipped it to rejection, two very weak reports, editor obviously did not read the paper, overall very bad experience. 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. I want to express my thankness to a refreee, who provded an exremly high quality report. Two of them suggested a possible solution. Referee's only objection is flat out incorrect (i discussed report with colleagues in my field). Desk reject within a 10 day but editor provided a short 'referee' report mentioning five issues. one nasty and rudely written report with inaccuracies as well, one cited lack of fit. 2 weeks for desk reject. Poorly managed journal. Total waste of time. The referee acted as if I didn't cite and discuss papers mentioned in the report. A shame the editor sided with the second. Desk reject after 3 days. One nasty and not helpful review, but two others were very constructive. Research Assistant (Pre-Doc) Law and Economics. Disappointing outcome, but OK overall experience. One brief report. 2 days from submission to desk rejection. No feedback and no useful suggestion in the rejection letter. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. Editor should know better. No substantive comments about the content of the paper at all. Had a paper published there recently. For the fee would have been nice if the Editor had written a paragraph about why they rejected. 14 days. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress. Nice process and outcome. Very good experience overall. The whole process took about a little bit more than a year, which is very good. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. No further comment from the editor. Bad experience. Two entirely reasonable reports. Would submit here again now that I know what to expect. I inquired a few times, and they responded promptly and politely, but sitting on a manuscript for a year is obviously unacceptable. Smooth process. Editor was US-based and said that she likes the idea though! Good experience in general, the editor recommended a field journal. Very good experience. The editor was good. One rubbish review from a referee who had no idea what the paper was about. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. 14 months from submission to publication online. Two referee reports. Not enough contribution. I declined the offer to resubmit. Two weeks to desk reject. Reports submitted within one month. Contribution too small. But the editor (Kunst) decided to "follow the referee's advice to reject your submission", even though there was no indication of such a recommendation in the RR. Not a good fit! Horrible treatment. Great comments from editor. At least the turnaround was quick. Great experience in general! Both referees were concerned about identification, but did not suggest how to fix. So-so experience. Editor accepted it. Have emailed for status to no avail. The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. Economics Journal Submission Wiki | Economics Job Market Rumors The reason was that the, Andrew Samwick rejected within 2 days, Topic is too speacialized for EL. Aarhus University, Department of Economics and Business Economics, School of Business and Social Sciences: Eric Hillebrand http://econ.au.dk/job-market-candidates . Over the past six years, the department has placed a total of 128 graduates in academic, research, and government jobs. 2 referees were positive throughout the process, one was an outright acceptance. Desk Reject in a Week but it did come with two pages of notes and questions that should help the paper. After R&R, the referee required one more round of revision. Ref report definitely helpful. Overall I feel paper rejected because of third negative review. Submitted July 2012, short empirical paper, still waiting for first response. Bad to useless reports after an unacceptably long response time. Bad experience. Nedless to say I got no referee report even after asking. Expected at least some referee reports but got a bad match editor-wise. ", Two reports - one thorough and one probably by a grad student, 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. At least it was fast. Editor's comments were very useful, like a good referee report. The referee did not understand the basic assumption of the model. took 5 months. 1 Month from Submission to a very positive R&R. One very good report, another one heavily biased against methodology, yet helpful. Referee reports were modestly helpful, though there was very little overlap between what the referees commented on. my paper was rejected but great comments on how this paper can be improved are made. I want my money back ! One useful report and the other less so. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. One guy who had no clue, the other who had good insight into our paper. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Editor reject due to relevance. 3 reports, very quick. After the second round R&R, I only had to deal with the long reviewer. Tyranny of the single review. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Great experience. solution? Some nice words from the editor. National Bureau of Economic Research. 1 serious person pushing his method. The editor did point out a couple of interesting things. Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. 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. AER, JPE), but taste a factor. 4 months for a desk rejection based on what it appears to be a very superficial reading of the abstract. After waiting for more than 5 months I got 0 Referee reports and a rejection based on very loose comments. Not a good fit. Fast and efficient. The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. He further suggested an exercise that was already illustrated in 2 figures, 1 table and described in the text! took 7 months for 1 referee report, but the R&R was quick. Although QJE may be one of the oldest professional journal of economics published in the English language, it is also stale. the ?author? Referee report was reasonable and improved the paper. Editor argued I had observational data and no identification, hence instant rejection. Editor and co-editor are extremely nice and supportive. 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. Desk Reject, No Comment, Horrible Experience- THEY DO NOT REFUND the submission fee. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. Well-run journal. Desk rejected as outside the scope of the journal. Excellent reports that really improved the paper. Editor desk rejected based on the identification strategy in the abstract, and clearly did not read the paper. "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". I withdrew the paper. Good process (and none of the coauthors are from 02139). Referee #1 wrote 1 sentence saying to submit it to AER. Massive work. Positive feedback from the editor. The Editor does appologize on the long delay saying one referee did not provide the report. However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. Fast decision after resubmit. The comments from the editor are also disappointing: his main suggestion is to send our 7,500 words paper to economics letters. One report useless, read only the first quarter of the paper. the? Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Althoff (Princeton), Bolte (Stanford), Cai (Northwestern), Colon (Harvard), Ederer (Toulouse), Kleinman (Princeton), Lanzani (MIT), Morazzoni (UPF), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Mukhin (LSE AP), Nguyen(MIT), Rivera (Columbia), Sandomirskiy (Caltech), Seck (Harvard), Xu (Stanford GSB AP), https://business.uc3m.es/en/seminars Brogger (CBS); Gabriel (Bonn); Karpati (Tilburg); Ballensiefen (St. Gallen); Mazzola (Erasmus); Terracciano (SFI), Morazzoni (UPF), Giocomo Lanzani, Rui Da, Theis Jensen, Antoine Ferey, Arthur Taburet, Pauline Carry, Marta Morazzoni, Clare Balboni, Suzanna Khalifa, Fedor Sandomirsky, Chao Ying, Vishal Kamat, Chen (Stanford GSB), McCrary (Penn), Rigato (Harvard), Guerreiro (NW), Lauletta (UC Berkeley), Castro (Princeton), Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Cai (NW), Crews (Chicago), Reyes (Berkeley), Muoz-Blanco (Trinity College), Amrico (UBC), Chiara Aina (Zurich); Giovanni Morzenti (Bocconi); Nathan Hancart (UCL); Regina Seibel (Zurich); Vasily Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA); Pauline Carry (CREST); Bruno Conte (U Bologna / UAB); Riccardo D'Adamo (UCL); Hugo Freeman (UCL); Jonas Lieber (Chicago); Alistair Macauley (Oxford); Philippe van der Beck (Ecole Polytechnique); Francesco Mazzola (Rotterdam School of Management); Gabriela Stockler (UAB), Victoria Barone (UCLA), Aina (Zurich), Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA), Conte (U Bologna / UAB), Stockler (UAB), Casella (UPenn). Bradshaw AdvisoryLondon/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds - UK. One positive report, one mixed and one negative. Sadly, from the comments of the editor it was clear that she did not read the paper careully either, otherwise she would not have written the coments we got on the rejection letter. Asim I. Khwaja editor, Two out of three referee reports were good one was much less. THREE MONTHS! Website | CV This journal is a scam. Revision accepted for publication in one week. Two weeks for a desk rejection. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. Tried to block publication in the second round as well but editor overrode. Fast Resposne in 10 week. Katz rejected in less than 24 hours with some comments. One referee gave very constructive comments, but referenced three papers by same person (I'm guess that's who referee was). 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. Transfer from another Elsevier journal - additional round of R&R but easily satisfied and made the paper better. That was also a very fast and good experience, though not the outcome I had hoped. One referee liked it, the other and the editor didn't. There is only one report called review number 2! Editor followed the second report. Overall, great experecience! Got reject after a year and half of work! A lot to revise, but editor gave only 2 months. Article was rejected but the comments were generally helpful and thoughtful. Reason - paper was too specialized. Took 3 month for a simple "out of scope" notification!! Editor didn't waste any time on accepting after first revision. Editor said he is sorry for the wait still waiting for the outcome of the second round. Duration: 2 years. Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. Desk reject after 30 hours, helpful comments from the editor. Terribly run journal and I wouldn't advise anyone to submit there. Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal. Two rounds of review. Also sent some emails to the editors but have no replies. two years is a bit too long, especially given that it will take more than a year before the paper appears in the journal. Lowest quality referee reports ever received. 2 shortish referee reports one fairly positive the other fairly negative, editor decided to reject based on lack of originality. Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. Suggested top field (JPubE in our case). Vastly improved the paper but had to submit elsewhere. SVAT is a full service firm in the areas of bookkeeping, accounting, tax and small . Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. High Quality Editing. Letter gives no mention of reasons for rejection and even unclear on paper's final status. Not a fit to the journal! One review was good, and helped to improve the paper, the other one (recommended rejection) was raising many peripheral issues. Two reports with mixed view. Good referee reports. Unbelievably slow given their 30-day referee guideline. They all got published in other journals and a book. no negative comments, just say that the contribution is not big enough for Econometrica, which is completely understandable. Hassan Afrouzi Assistant Professor of Economics Columbia University Thoughtful comments from the referees and the editor. The process was very fast. After two weeks we got a desk rejection with a very impersonal letter which made us think that the editor did not even read the intro. Editor didn't read the paper. Desk rejected the next day. 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. Fast and very polite response. Less than 3 weeks for the first responses (major R&R) then accepted in less than a week. Getting a reference to AEJ Applied was worth it. The referees made good points. Took 7 months to get one referee report. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. Desk reject after 3 days. Very slow. but i think it is an important one that should be considered a bonafide econ journal. 10 days for desk rejection decision. But referees are very negative. Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. Helpful referee reports. I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. One referee suggested R and R. Other referee rejected (AE and DE supported this). Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. Very efficient process, better than expected. Quick response within three days. The referees and the editor took ridic, Editor: Heckman; high quality reports, two of the reports were helpful and constructive. Good ref reports. I recommend. Took a while, but great experience overall. Professional and useful oversall. Editor was changed, asked for electronic resubmission and paper got rejected. Two referees were lukewarm but couldn't really point out too much that was wrong. We did. Overall good experience. 3 weeks for a desk reject. Desk rejected after one day due to poor fit. fluent ?in? Comments from Larry very helpful. If you need a fast turnaround, this is not the journal for you! 1 week: nice, but no fit with general interest. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. Avoid that journal. The editor also read the paper and gave very good comments and suggestions. Good report. Very useful comments from referees. Two 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. The other referee was concerned about the limitations of the identification strategy, but the same strategy has been used in other studies (some are in top field journals). Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. No reimburment of submission fee ($130). Welcome to the Mathematics Jobs Wiki 2021-2022 research positions page. In terms of rejections this is probably as good as it gets. In all the rejection was fair. by Tatonnement Oct 1, 2008 18:58:14 GMT -5: Legend. One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor. Editor was a bit harsh. Very bad experience. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. Awfully slow. Editor rejected. Bruno Biais was AE. Insane process and utterly inexperienced referee. less than 2 weeks, recommended field journal. Good comments, made the paper better. Both referees caught the major issue in the paper and offered great suggestions for moving forward. The referee was ideologically opposed to our paper more than anything else. Great experience. Quick desk reject after less than 24 hours without comments, annoying given the submission fee. 3 reports in 28 days. Filter by advisor. Comments were sharp and precise and resulted in a much better paper. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so." Waited for almost a year and sent a couple of emails to the editor; promised us a response in two weeks. Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. Surprisingly, she had one-page long useful comments, which helped improve the paper. I suppose if your work is primarily empirical then you'd better do something that's close to the editor's personal interest, otherwise there will always be the criticism that you need more theory. Good overall experience. Six weeks for a desk reject with no reasons offered, Under editor's evaluation for almost 2 months. The paper was with the journal for five months and we got a rejection with only one referee report with 5 bullet points (two of which were about typos). Very bad experience. One ref suggested I send it to JPE before trying places like EJ or ReStat. First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. I'd submit there again in the future. 2 months after first submission of manuscript. Rigor of the paper increased greatly because of the refereeing process. [email protected]. AER:Insights - Larry Samuelson, Very polite, slightly more than standard rejection letter, saying - not a good fit, although enjoyable. The Editor Requate cannot distinguish between partial and general equilibrium. He/she states that a particular model delivers a set of results, although I show that it does not. Good process. Two years later still waiting for referee reports. 2 positive. It seems they rushed to reject it. Referee comments greatly improved the paper, editor was awesome. Editor misread the title and barely read the abstract. The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made. After two interventions got 1 ridiculous report. Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. Horrible. Quick to online first. She said only 1 (very short but with no objections) of 3 of the referees responded and was not able to find new referees. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. Very long time to receive the first decision (major revision). Very good experience. AE rejected without commenting on referee report, At least a quick report with one good comment that can help to improve the paper, but with the other points highlighted by the referee were discussed in the paper. Within a week with no justification. Will never submit to this journal again. Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. All suggest major revision and change of approach. Very constructive comments from Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) and referees. The comment by the editor in charge was helpful. BTW if one of the referee goes for RR, I would have to wait for a third referee report (lucky me?). Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Manuscript was withdrawn - editor had assigned referees within 3 months of submission but then these were apparently not forthcoming. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Two referee reports. Thorough ref reports with good comments. Two reports. Excellent and rapid process, with clear comments and instructions from referees and editor. Two excellent (and supportive) referee reports. Editor clearly asked some half-literate grad student to write a negative review. happy for a quick decision. He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. 8 days to desk rejection. quick turnaround and helpful referee report. I wish my coauthors would not be too sad being rejected. The referee is clearly not up to the task. 6 months and no feedback from the journal whtsoever. I am asked to send to another journal because the paper is not a good fit, the editor is very nice, professional and efficient. One referee report was helpful, the other was on average.

Henry Big Boy Sights, Articles E