Easy Process. Disappointed. Editor was Mogde. Not even a single remotely useful comment. Submission refund. Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow. overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness. Editor makes no attempt to reconcile conflicting reports or, One good referee report. There are several claims that are either wrong or very poorly explained (e.g., a Nash equilibrium need not be Pareto optimal!). Accepted 4 days after resub. One positive report, one mixed and one negative. Ultimately fair. Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. Editor suggested JIE. An Associate Editor clearly read the paper. Some warm words from the editor. Editor was Imran Rasul, extremely professional and competent. 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. Avoid that journal. 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) complimentary with some comments but said focus was too narrow, Good feedback from eitor, very quick desk reject. At least the fee is refunded. 23 hours and 30 minutes after submission, desk reject from Shleifer. The editor wrote the 2nd report. 7 months waiting for one poor referee report rejecting the paper for an unwarranted wording issue. Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. Weird decision as the paper was not far from being accepted at a better journal. Ona day later they reected it with a one sentence crappy referee report. Proved to be quite true. This was high risk but of course at the end worth it because it is a good journal. One refree report who made very useful comments that helped significantly improve the paper. Submission fee refund. one positive one negative, editor chose to reject. Most efficient experience with journals ever! One referee was amazing, the other one added no value. Garbage. 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) Three very constructive referee reports that help improving the quality of the paper. Pages for jobs that begin in 2023: African & African American Studies 2022-2023 American Studies 2022-2023 Anthropology 2022-2023 Archaeology 2022-2023 Art History 2022 . One week desk rejection with form letter. It seems they rushed to reject it. Surprised at how quickly all went. Clearly done day before deadline. Very quick and very fair. Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. (are we a bit paranoiac?). Editor also gave very detailed description of the necessary changes. Could have been more lucky with referees, but at least it was very efficient. Avoid at all costs. Very nice experience! Desk rejected with 1 sentence after 2 months. Excellent referee reports, with useful input from the editor (Auerbach) regarding how to handle them. Very pleasant process. The shitty one referred to multiple papers in very low ranked journals authored by the same set of authors. They pretend to look like an international journal however thay only consider studies related to Japan. Two month later it is rejected and get two referee reports (fair enough there). Time to accept less than 1 year. SVAT is a full service firm in the areas of bookkeeping, accounting, tax and small . Not too bad an experience. Fairly helpful referee report. 9 months for 1 2-page referee report. Good points, though, and overall a good experience. The review process yielded good referee reports in round 1. Bad experience. ), Vienna University of Economics and Business, Ceccarelli (Zurich/Maastricht), Pitkjrvi (Aalto), Assistant Professor in Labor, Migration, and Racial Capitalism, Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario), Gallant (Toronto), Sullivan (Yale), Cui (UPenn), Choi (Wisconsin-Madison), Kahou (UBC), Hentall-MacCuish (UCL), Babalievsky (minnesota), Moszkowski (Harvard), Hong (Wisconsin-Madison), Pan (UT Austin), McCrary (UPenn), Gutierrez (University of Chicago), Kwon (Cornell), Zillessen (Oxford), Ba (UPenn), Assistant, Advanced Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor of Economics, E0 -- General F3 -- International Finance F4 -- Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Fin. But at least it was quick. It is probably not surprising that the editor simply failed to understand the theoretical model and the referees had zero understanding of the empirics. Desk rejected in less than a week. Editor rejected after R&R without providing any referee report (note: journal name has now changed to International Journal of Health Economics and Management, International Journal of Industrial Organization. Good comments from referee and editor after five months. 1 positive but short & useless, 1 incompetent negative who didn't even understand the historical topic. Nice letter. Two reports are suggestive but the other one was a low-quality. Pretty efficient turnaround. quick process but the editor provided no information and was impolite. Referees reasons to reject the paper are not convincing enough. improved paper based on comments. Slightly more informative than a desk rejection. Expected at least some referee reports but got a bad match editor-wise. The referees made good points. The report is rubbish and incorrect. One referee commented that we didn't make a methodological contribution and asked why economists should care about Y. Paper was accepted two days later. Desk rejection (standard email). very comprehensive report. The other referee was of low quality. Editor decided to reject because he could only find one person to review. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. Reviewing all the documents, she does not like the paper: rejection with 800 words of blabla. Two referee reviews. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. Efficient handling by editor. Very poor experience. Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE. not broad enough, it seems that JHR considers themselves as a general interest journal. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. 10 month without any reaction from the editor. Very useful reports, also doing some editing. Would submit again. I appreciate the quick desk reject. very good experience and fast acceptance after addressing referees' comments. Use widely accepted methods. If the editor tought the paper did not fit the scope of the journal, he should have rejected it at the very beginning of the process, without engaging in a peer-review. With hindsight, I got much more out of submitting this paper to TE. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. One referee posted two of his own papers including url in the report, one of which was just accepted in the same journal before sending reports. It was almost like somebody pickpocketed and got my $600, had to pay $100 instead of the usual submission fee. 12 months and waiting. 8 Days to get a desk reject. Pretty helpful reports. Quick response from referees and editor. Katz voted to reject. We were asked to collect additional data for our existing experimental treatments to increase our statistical power. Kathryn spier, the editor, was even more clueless and unable to see that we were right and s(he) was wrong. It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. Ok referee reports. Portuguese Economic Journal* Great process. One line "referee report". Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. The policy of the journal is to let each author appoint the referees, which improves speed on one hand but generates citation groups on the other hand. 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). Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA)Berkeley - USA, Director of Economics and Data A very good experience. The main tasks of the potential candidates would be to carry . Great turnaround I guess? Rejected with only 1 referee reports and after waiting 10 months! 2.5 months to desk reject. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Putea MatuaWellington - New Zealand, Assistant Director, Economics Very quick process. This journal is a bit hell to make it attractive to authors in order to get their money easily. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. So not good but frankly much better than other journals. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). 3 weeks for a desk reject. Highly recommended. BTW if one of the referee goes for RR, I would have to wait for a third referee report (lucky me?). Would try again. I am not in a club, whatever it is.). Referee had positive comments and suggested revise and resubmit, but editor rejected it. 3rd round 1 month and then accepted. Russia was born in Kiev. Apart from long waiting time (editor part of the old guard at JPE), positive experience. Very negative experience. Transfer from another Elsevier journal. Much better than regular EL. Two high quality reports. Referees didn't read the article properly! I don't know what to add. Stay away from JAE. Courteous notes from editor&co-editors when first response was delayed. decent referee reports, overall good experience. Desk rejected in two weeks. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Very efficient process. No input from editor either. Quite slow response for a mid-tier journal. Avoid at all cost. Solid referee report and very quick response. Only 1 report, but a fair assessment of the paper. 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit. The contribution of the paper is not enough for EL! Do not send a paper to BE JM, Very bad experience. Terrible screening process at this journal. Slow moving. The first note of the referee claimed that I didn't do something I clearly did. I am a macroeconomist specialized in economic growth and macro labor. Paper went multiple rounds over 2 years. Good process. Long wait though. the referee report adds nothing, and the editor rejects based on the meaningless report. Our paper went through four rounds and finally accepted after one year of its submission. Would submit again. Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. The referee reports were fairly good. Club journal that accepts your paper if you have good ties to the editors. AE recommended another journal. Horner is a disaster! It also tries to give advice, but not really doable. 1 positive and 1 negative report. Initial demanding R&R. Two reports that are quite detailed. Now Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. Very helpful feedback that made this a better paper. One referee, although clearly in favour of publication, asked a good deal of revisions and it took us 4 motnhs to respond so most of the delay may have been our fault.
Terayle Hill And Loren Lott Married,
Hyland's Earache Drops Recall,
Shesh Ghale Ranking In World,
Articles E
econ job market rumors wiki