Reject. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. Fair rejection. I'd submit there again in the future. One rubbish review from a referee who had no idea what the paper was about. Clearly the paper was not good enough for the JIE. I urged the editor to give me reports 3 months after the initial submission. Very good experience. The second time I was told that my results were "not surprising". This is expected as I am not part of the editor's inner circle. Excellent editor, balanced referees and good timing. Most efficient experience with journals ever! Waste of time and money. had to withdraw, Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. Wasted months of work. Bad experience, waste of money and time. One high quality report. Liran Einav 650-723-3704 leinav@stanford.edu. Nice rejection letter. Decision was made in 45 days. Editor: "Far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal". Much better than overal reputation of journal. Never again. desk reject in 2.5 hrs? Editor rejected, but I have a feeling that both refs recommended R&R for different reasons. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. it.?I? Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. Economics Job Market Rumors . Incredible experience: referee said he/she didn't like the paper. To get rejected in a good journal, that is ok since it is part of the business but waiting 10 moths for refereee reports of that quality was a really bad deal. Overall, a very good experience. Avoid at all costs, International Review of Economics and Finance. 10 lines not even sure they read the paper. Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. Strange desk reject by editor, claiming methods weren't relevant to policy. Such along time frame for such a poor assessment of the paper. 12 months and waiting. Generally not 5-star experience but worth submitting there if your paper is relevant. Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. 2 strong reports with valid empirical critiques, 1 less so. Very helpful comments. After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. Both referees clearly read the paper and discussed potential concerns of the analysis. Desk rejected in 14 days, just long enough to get hopes up, with boilerplate "not general interest.". Assistant Professor of Economics Columbia University Visiting Research Associate (2022-23) BFI at the University of Chicago Research Network Affiliate CESifo Network Links: Cognition and Decision Lab DRIPs Curriculum Vitae Google Scholar Contact: ha2475@columbia.edu . Felt somewhat subjective. Very efficiently run journal. One is OK, other one is exteremly negative. To be honest, I had a hard time understanding exactly what the point of your paper is. The paper was accepted few days after the revised version has been submitted. Seemed not to like the idea of the paper without actually reading it. "We are hesitant to publish purely empirical papers" comment could have been boilerplate but seemed uninformative, Exceptionally quick turnaround times. Helpful comments from referees and editor. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. Very useful suggestions by the editor who read the paper carefully. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. In the opinion of the Editorial Board, this paper does not appear to be a good match (the othee papers are good match) for the International Journal of Industrial Organization and it is unlikely that this paper will ultimately be published in the IJIO. Paper was a letter. Both editor and referees liked the paper, comments from referees are on the point and constructive. a bit slowtwo general positive+one negative reports, and the editor rejected itfeel sad, but not too bad experience Average (low) quality reports. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Ref reports both frank and helpful. One almost non-existent referee report (basically two lines just saying the paper is not broad enough), one very detailed and overall positive report. Worst. quick decision by the editor. The first referee points out at the weaknesses of the paper and proposes reasonable solutions. Pleasantly surprised by the quality of referee report. Disappointing referee: a few useful comments, but mostly low-grade and somewhat hostile. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. Neither referee is hostile. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. Should be careful to submit. Every time I'm impressed by how precise the reviews and suggestions are. Good experience. The two anonymous referees were surely competent even though they did not go in depth as the editor did. I want to express my thankness to a refreee, who provded an exremly high quality report. Desk reject after 3 days. Submission refund. More than 16 weeks!! About 14 weeks from submission to referee reject. Good experience overall, only took 2 weeks, two short reports, one very useful. Went on to publish in a better journal. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. Decent reports highlighting different issues, mostly sympathetic, but tough. Would try again. Editor wrote a few short comments. At least they are faster than their reputation. Editor took two weeks to unconditionally accept. The other reviewer I suspect of being a graduate student with not so good comments. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. Incredibly unprofessional. 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. desk reject by kahn in 48 hours. Which editor handles the paper mattered. After R&R, the referee required one more round of revision. Desk reject with generic letter at 3 weeks. Would submit again. AE recommended another journal. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. I think that's fair, since I had also suspected the paper might not be a great fit. Submitted in the covid special issue. Editor read the paper and gave helpful feedback. Two thoughtful refs, one clueless. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. 1 short report (but good points) and 1 very long report. Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. One referee not only did not read the paper but criticized something the paper does not do at all! One referee for sure did not read the paper as pointed things which were actually in the paper. Editor rejected the paper based on the decision of board of editor. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). 2 positive. Currently in R&R. Reviewers comments were quite helpful. Good experience. Law School. Unbelievable! Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. Very smooth process. Emailed every six months never to any response. The paper was accepted after I incorporated all suggestions in R&R. Would submit here again now that I know what to expect. Would submit again. No ref reports, 1 sentence from editor. Editor desk rejected based on the identification strategy in the abstract, and clearly did not read the paper. Fair rejection. Good experience, worth the 100$ :). The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made. Great experience. One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. Aarhus University, Department of Economics and Business Economics, School of Business and Social Sciences: Eric Hillebrand http://econ.au.dk/job-market-candidates . Invited to revise and resubmit the paper. Nice when they actually read the paper. No reason given. Bruno Biais was AE. Rejected for not significant enough contribution. The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. 1 month + 10 days for desk rejection. Empty report. The new editor (Leeat Yariv) did a great job: She indeed read the paper and gave constructive comments. One very low quality and unfriendly report. He suggests AER Insights and top field journals. Editor accepted the article within one week. Insightful and constructive comments. 2.5 months review. Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. No input from editor either. The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. Would not hesitate to submit to this journal in the future. Two useless reports for a paper that has been accepted by another journal of general interest. Editorial processes were very fast. 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. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. Accepted 4 days after resub. Editor was kindly respond my email after 6 months, informed me that referees did not respond even after emailing them. Extremely poor experience. 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) 10 month without any reaction from the editor. contribution is not enough. The referee also pretended that I did not develop a two-sided hypothesis (comment like "why didn't the author think of this? Editor also gave very detailed description of the necessary changes. No specific comment from the editor. Disappointing. Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. referees said "nice but not great". No further comment from the editor. One positive one negative. Clearly the referee was someone not in the field of the paper (Asset Pricing). It would be a positive experience if submission were free. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. Editor acted as 4th referee once referees were satisfied. One useless report, and one very useful report. I guess I had the luck of being assigned to two business school types with absolutely no idea of the literature that my model belonged to.
Best Hair Products At Tj Maxx,
License Renewal Ct Aaa,
Articles E
econ job market rumors wiki