Both have suggestions (one extensive, one less so). Duke University. Unacceptable waiting time. Nothing that could not be fixed in 2 days, still reject. Extremely outdated econometric "suggestions" and an overall lack of understanding. Very disappointing experience. Submitting to JME first was really worth it. Reports only partly helpful. It takes the editor a long time to respond but the comments are very helpful. 2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. Not really a complaint though as there is no submission fee and the process was timely. 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. Five weeks "with editor" to a boilerplate desk reject, then they asked me to applaud them for a "speedy decision.". Candidate Job Market Roster: Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. Yep, it is. Referees reasons to reject the paper are not convincing enough. Worst referee report ever with unsubstantiated claims. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. Two referee reports, each was half a page with very general comments about the lack of contribution to a general readership. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. Couple of comments why the paper does not fit (relatively reasonable). Just a one-paragraph report saying that the results are not "novel". End of story. Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. No reason given (just lack of fit..), no suggestions to improve, no money back. 2 minutes passed between receiving editor name an receiving desk rejection. Not recommended. Editorial board review and then rejection. Good comments, made the paper better. Main editor Wilson takes care of it. 1 week: nice, but no fit with general interest. Two very useful referee reports. 3 reports. It has been about 16 months now. 9 months to one ref report which was not helpful. Encouraging and polite comments from editor. Helpful comments from reviewer and editor. All the referees understood what I did in great detail. It than took the editor (Mark Watson) another 6 months to read reports and make a decision. Expected much better from this journal. Bad experience, there was a long wait of mroe than 10 months to get 2 referee reports that did not like the the paper (but not so sure why). if we go by his saying, then all finance articles are purely pointless. We were authorized to hire 2 macro candidates, and we have now done so. Excellent comments from reviewers. by Tatonnement Oct 1, 2008 18:58:14 GMT -5: Legend. Awesome experience. Just one referee report. 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. Just one very low quality report. The comments are of bad quality and show poor knowledge of economics. Quick response within three days. Overall, good experience. Said they would refund the submission fee, which is nice. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. Would try again in the future. This journal is a joke. One of the critics was not applicable, but the major critic was quite helpful. It was crazy to wait that long for a dek rejectionwas not happy at alland there was not any comments or any reviews at allbasically waited for nothing for 5 months.. 3 weeks for a desk reject. Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. Referee wrote a short report with easily implementable suggestions, suggesting revision. Waited a year for two low quality reports. Not too bad an experience. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. 2 (ridiculous) referee reports, poor handling by the editor. Bugaga! Reasonable referee report. The paper was accepted quickly after revision. Overall very good experience. Quick, polite desk rejection from Deming. Clear editor had read the paper, helpful comments. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. Reports were very positive, it took us 12 weeks to resubmit. No comments at all from editor other than generic stuff. Tyranny of the single review. Rejected by editor with a comment that referees might not like the paper, Desk rejected after 1 month without any comments. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. I'm amazed. Afwul experience. Took altogether 8 months to acceptance. Overall very fast process. The ME provided helpful comments on top of the two reviewers'. Reports were pretty good. Editor gave me chance to convince other referee. One decent and one sloppy report, 1 good report, 1 bad one, decent turnaround time. Poorly managed editorial process. The referee did not read the first sentence of the paper and was not familiar with the literature. That mean 5 people read my paper? Will never submit again to ER. Costas Meghir was editor. One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. Terrible referee report referee made contradictory statements and econometric mistakes in report. almost useless and the editor is too slow. And he did not find the topic interesting. Fantastic experience. Despite the rejection, referees raised valid points that we can adress to improve our paper and provided a way forward. Quick turnaround time for the first R&R, but very slow for the last round. And because he could not find theoretical contributions. In a typical year, every MIT Economics PhD graduate finds a job. Paper: "Regulating the Sharing Economy: A Study of Unlawful Providers". 9 months for 1 2-page referee report. Only 1 report, but a fair assessment of the paper. Accepted after two rounds of revisions. For the fee would have been nice if the Editor had written a paragraph about why they rejected. The transfer offer was helpful, though, since we did not have to pay a submission fee in order to send the paper to the other journal. Two years for such outcome. Not very useful comments from any of them. 6 weeks to get desk rejected for not being of general interest. Notice that I submitted there on the basis of the widely publicized (EEA Gothenburg) fastness of this journal. Disappointed. The referees made good points. Neither of the two reviewers seemed t have read the paper. desk with a letter from editor. ", Fact: the SAT and GRE are just thinly veiled IQ tests.
Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in R&R in two months. Good turnaround time. Funny thing is Editor endorsed reviewer's response. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh, London, Manchester - UK, Predoctoral Fellow Very slow and no much reason given for desk rejection. Reject because aparently would not fit in their journal. Two decent, one useless and completely wrong. Referees and editor reports were incredibly useful, Shitty ref report. Very poor quality referee report after waiting for more than 7 months. Disappointing outcome, but OK overall experience. Also revisions handled quite efficiently! Available November 2022 for positions in Summer/Fall 2023. The report must have been farmed out to some grad student who couldn't write. 7 days for desk reject. Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. Contribution not new enough. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. Who are these people?? Some warm words from the editor. San Jose, CA. Very bad experience. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. What is left to say? Comments were non-constructive and some were even wrong. My paper on the "The Impact of MTV's 16 and Pregnant on Teen Childbearing" was quickly accepted due to its relevance and awesome nature. The other referee was serious however. Bad experience, waste of money and time. Instead, they should've looked at B." Editor wrote half a page and was polite. Will not consider it again. So-so report. I have no clue who the referee wanted to impress, maybe the editor? 2 decent reports. Entire process takes 1 month. Finance Job Rumors (489,486) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,772) Micro Job Rumors (15,235) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,012) China Job Market (103,527) Industry Rumors (40,348) Also the editor gave us good comments. Referees did not show good knowledge of the subject. Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. Not enough novelty. No comments whatsoever, in an un-signed email with 2 generic sentences, Desk rejected after one week with kind words from co-editor and recommended field journal, Poor justification, pure taste by Debraj Ray. Decent reports. Kicker: next day got an email to renew my CEA membership to be able to keep submitting to CJE! Would surely submit to it again. Good reports. very rigorous comments. Terrible experience. Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions. Efficient process, stuck to advertised timings. About 10 weeks from submission to referee reject. SIX MONTHS for a desk reject. One excellent and positive report. "Paper not of general interest, try sending to a field journal". Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work.". Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit. Well-run journal. However, he referred to incorrect and minor points made by the referees. Contacted them, told me they will try to send it out to reviewers. Rejection reason: not general interest enough. Barro says not sufficiently general interest, and advises to try a field journal instead. Overall a very nice experience. This page collects information about the academic mathematics job market: positions, short lists, offers, acceptances, etc. Burak Uras (Tilburg AP), Caitlin Hegarty (Michigan), Diana Sverdlin Lisker (MIT), Suzanna Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Garima Sharma (MIT), Ruozi Song (USC), Heitor Sandes Pellegrina (NYU Abu Dhabi), Juanma Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Katherine Stapleton (WB/Oxford), Dario Tortarolo (Berkeley), Jonah Rexer (Wharton), Anna Vitali (UCL), Livia Alfonsi (Berkeley), Binta Zahra Diop (Oxford), Shafaat Yar Khan (WB/Rochester), Althoff (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Vaidya (Northwestern), Chan (Stanford), Bodere (NYU), Pernoud (Stanford), Kang (Stanford GSB), Minni (LSE), Otero (Berkeley), Bodere (NYU), Vergara (Berkeley), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Carry (CREST), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Ospital (UCLA), Lanzani (MIT), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Kennedy (Berkeley), Souchier (Stanford). Very good experience, Good experience. We asked to see the reports but the editor did not send them. The other report was useless. Desk rejected. Horrible experience. Very different experience from the first time. Job Market Candidates. Overall, great experience despite the negative outcome, The WORST experience of my rather long life.
EJM - Econ Job Market Garbage. Terribly disappointing experience. Good experience. report and a couple of pretty good ones. Will not submit here again. Ali Kutan is the associate editor, finally accepted the paper. Editor decided to not even send the revised paper back to the referees. One excellent and detailed (5pages) referee report which helped a lot in revising the paper to a much higher level. 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. One decent report. The paper was accepted few days after the revised version has been submitted. Unbelievably fast and helpful. Very happy with the process, definetly a favorite for future. One referee liked the paper but had doubts about the Y variable (kiss of death); other referee turned in a three page report but missed the point of the paper completely (while asking us to delete the explanation which would have answered his questions). The editor did not even realized this and rejected. the website was hackedthe report was good, and the associate editor is very nice. 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit. Deemed too narrow for the journal. Editor at least seemed to have given a pretty detailed reading of the paper, but was disappointed with the amount of time it took for a desk rejection. 10 days for desk rejection decision. Short straight-to-the point referee report with a few nice points, no bullc*ap. Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. Very reputable journal with fast response policy which is good for authors: desk rejection in weeks, referee rejection in 2-3 months (usually). Bad experience on the whole. 14 days. Desk reject after 2 months. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. Editor read the paper and gave helpful feedback. Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. One good quality report suggesting minor revisions after 1 month. Paper was long and too dispersed at first, but the managing editor (Baptista) liked it, and the reviewers asked for changes while being receptive. very good ref reports. In all the rejection was fair. The editor suggested to try a more mainstream Public Finance journal (I think may paper could have fit Public Choice but fair enough I will try another Public Finance journal). In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. R&R after 3-4 months. We got RR and referee reports 4 moths after submission, then it took 5 months to acceptance. Got two most useless reports ever. Not helpful in any way. The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. One good report and the other mediocre. Job Description Linkedin.com. Almost 8 months to acceptance, despite Revised version submitted after 5months. Editor was respectful and not full of himself. Very long time for first response. Great judgment. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. Quick rejection (Canova, 5 days), professional, very acceptable decision. Great editor who was great at handling the process and chasing referees. Fair points raised, although I would have preferred a R&R naturally. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list. Two rounds of R&R, final acceptance after second round within 5 days. Economics Job Market. Very good comments from both the reviewers and editors. The first revision took around 5 months. After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected.
Job Market Candidates | Department of Economics Great process, fast and fair. I had. The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. Highly recommended. seven weeks to say poor fit when similar and cited papers are published there. it.?I? Emailed journal to withdraw submission after 14 months. In really sped things up. All reports are positive. No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. I agree with most of the comments, but the bar for publication was exceptionally high, considering his relatively low position in the journal ranking. The literature review was complete! desk reject after three months editor claimed they did not publish papers on this topic but they bogh b, actually submitted in 2017; desk rejection after 1 week; short and friendly answer of editor; however inconclusive, editoral. 1 helpful report. Upon inspection these papers are only superficially related. Less than insightful comments by an editor clearly hastily read the paper. One (very) useful report and one useless, 5 months from submission to acceptance, Desk reject in an hour. After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. No referee reports. Editor was Andrew Street. The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress. 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. Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. Expensive but quick. Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. Worst experience ever. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. Good for knowing what people didn't like, but not clear how to improve. No other comments. Bad experience. Editor was very reasonable. 3 rounds then rejected by editor, paper was improved by addressing reviewers' comments, eventually accepted at RFS, Cam Harvey gave useless report; obvious outgoing editor is obvious. One crappy referee report, one useful referee report, one grad student referee report. One very good set of comments. Good experience.
Market Access Asia region manager in Taipei, Taipei City, 11568 Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days. Incredibly fast review process, on this occasion. Expected better from an AEJ. No reason given. Just stay away! Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. Seven months at least the reports where good. Unbelievably slow given their 30-day referee guideline. Research Interests : Digital Platforms & Society, Regulatory Uncertainty on Digital Platforms. Two useful reports that improved the paper. One good report, one completely useless with only superficial, general remarks. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. 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. The second editor rejected it. Highly recommend this journal for a paper that wouldn't make it to top 5. Excellent ref report. Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Economics of Food Consumption and Distribution. A bit long for a short paper, comments were fair and detailed although they pointed the way to an R&R rather than rejection. A form-letter rejection from Katz. Very helpful comment. Reasonable comments from the referee, extremely fast and efficient process. Will never submit there again. Desk reject within 1 day. One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. Amazing experience. 6 months was a lot to wait for one good report though Good feedback. Was contacted again after another two years promising that my paper was to be considered, and say yes please do. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. My previous two research papers were also desk rejected by Barro. Secondary: Applied Macroeconomics and International Economics. Managing the academic job market. Friendly email from editor, interesting reports from referees. One quite short referee report. Quick acceptance after revision. Editor cites two but only sends one. Good experience with helpful AE and reviewer. took the money. Emailed every six months never to any response. this journal is very inefficient in processing submissions and re-submissions. Very pleasant process. Expected at least some referee reports but got a bad match editor-wise. Will never submit there again. Seemed to have an agenda, as though I offended his work. While the ref rejection runied my day, I must conclude that the process was very efficient and the editors/refs earned every penny of the submission fee based on the feedback I received. Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. Although desk-rejected, I am very satisfied. Helpful comments from the editor (besides the usual thy shall cite my papers). Very tough journal with very extensive comments from 3 refs. I sent in my paper and after 2 emails requesting information about the status of my manuscript, I was asked to be patient. Editor was insufficient in evaluating our paper and rejected it due to a paper cited in the reference list! Desk reject within a few days. professional. Might submit again, a little disappointed that they didn't try to get it reviewed. A very positive experience for a filler publication. Reject because apparently would not fit in their journal. Best experience in a long time. Editor desk rejected after a couple of weeks due to lack of fit. Desk rejected within two weeks. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. After doing what the, very stupid, referee asked he said "not a big enough contribution". Three months. I then spent 2+ months revising, only to be rejected (after another two months), no new reports, but detailed comments from the editor. It also tries to give advice, but not really doable. Awful experience. Would submit again. One of the worst experience I have ever had. Referee says R&R, but editor decides to reject outright.
2022-2023 China Job Market Wiki Economics Job Market Rumors