econ job market rumors wiki10 marca 2023
Accepted without revisions. reviewer knew an aspect of the literature and appeared to promote his own unpublished paper under review at the same journal. Two and a half months for a desk reject for lack of fit. Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow. Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. The referee asked for revision but Barnett or an AE rejected after I emailed them after 6 months. Overall a very nice experience. Insane process and utterly inexperienced referee. 2 detailed comments from referees. Took 3 month for a simple "out of scope" notification!! Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. editor read the paper and decided to give it an r&r. Couldn;t get second referee so editor said he read carefully himself. 1.5 weeks overall, Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. Which editor handles the paper mattered. Spent a week rewriting the paper according to requests of the editor ("put figures in the end of the paper" and such), then got a desk reject. UghhhI will probably withdraw the submission, It is the worst experience I have ever had with a journal. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. Constructive and very specific. Fast response. 2 straightforward reports with fair criticism. Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. Took a long time for first response which suggested feasible changes and asked for a revised submission. One good referee report. Kneller is a very good editor, the experience has been very good. 1 lukewarm, lazy report with many mistakes. Worst experience so far. Three rounds. Horrible reports. Journal: Utilities Policy (was not included as a journal to chose). 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). Editor desk rejected stating that paper (which was on the program of Top 3 conferences etc.) 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) 4 weeks for desk rejection is too much. Great experience overall, Editor decided not to wait for the late referee not to slow down the process. Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. Ultimately, Editor rejected as felt it was not general purpose enough. Good quality reports for a low-ranked journal, though. Very good experience. One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor. In the meantime they lied to me saying that it was out for review and that they were awaiting referee scores. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. Paper was accepted in 1 month after the submission. Nice comments and feedback from Associate Editor. Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. desk rejected after thee months. One unprofessional and clueless referee. Full of informative/wrong comments. Had wait for the first response awfully long. awful experience. Some unfair comments about replicating what other papers have done (which are already discussed in the paper!) very quick response and a useful referee report. Decent reports; AE was a bit difficult, but ultimately helpful, Good reports and constructive feedback from AE; only 1 round of R&R. Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Economics of Food Consumption and Distribution. Two straightforward reports calling for revision. Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. multiple rounds, one of round took about a year. Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. 6 months to desk reject with little reason. AE didn't provide comments which is odd. Decent referee reports. The AEA provides a guide to the job market process created by John Cawley. Referee reports were incredibly useful and significantly improved the paper. 2 week desk reject. One crappy referee report, one useful referee report, one grad student referee report. is ?so ?poor? Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. Very useful reports, also doing some editing. 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. Negative report is pretty bad. Referee's only objection is flat out incorrect (i discussed report with colleagues in my field). We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. so,? Thank goodness that there are more journals in health economics started. two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. Quick, professional, very acceptable decision. After one round of revision, two of the three reviewers accepted the paper and one requested at best minor revision. Two decent referee reports. Good experience, great turnaround. Great comments from editors and referees. Placements of Recent Economics Graduates. Very, very disappointed! Good referee reports about key aspects of the research question framing and relevance. Desk rejected by Sarte in 3 days without comments. I received my Ph.D. degree at the University of Chicago in 2022. Delays related to second reviewer. a bit slowtwo general positive+one negative reports, and the editor rejected itfeel sad, but not too bad experience Average (low) quality reports. Desk rejected in 25 minutes. The editor is responsive. Six weeks for a desk reject with no reasons offered, Under editor's evaluation for almost 2 months. Complained. Not much to complain about. William A. Barnett is a very professional editor and reviews were helpful. Environment, Development, and Sustainability. The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. Great letter from Nezih G and two good referee reports. short straightforward paper, should take max 2 hours to read carefully,still under review, editor (Hall) non-responsive, waiting 30 months for response, editor not responding to inquiries. Very good referees. 2 good, one grumpy referee report. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. Two helpful reports. One of the papers has over 3000 citations. Could have desk rejected and saved us all the trouble. Outrageously poor process. 2nd very short and useless, referee probably spent 10 mins on it. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. DK carefully read and gave constructive feedback. Nice when they actually read the paper. Under two month for two reports. Home. Excellent and helpful comments from both referees and the editor. Reject with two referee reports, one gives constructive comments, one rejects with half a page report, saying the paper is not for a general readership. Special fast-track call. Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. Bad experience. Suggested some other journals. Editor desk rejected based on the identification strategy in the abstract, and clearly did not read the paper. One seems to be written by a first-year bachelor student. Very inefficient handling of the work. fluent ?in? The referee suggested rejection, and the associate editor agreed. Journal always replied to me saying it is delayed and I finally withdrew after 2 years with no response. Nice experience despite a rejection. Very Detailed construtive reports. Two reports, both harsh and recommended reject. A very detailed and fair review of our research, providing a balanced judgement of our achievements. Encouraging and polite comments from editor. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. Desk reject took four days. The editor was good. Very late and vague one page referee report, rejection based on perceived bad fit with journal. R&R only one round; after submitting the revised version, only waited for six days until final acceptance. 2 weeks for a desk rejection, editor actually read the paper and commented on it before deciding it is more suited to a field journal. The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. Desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Awfully slow for a desk reject, but at least the editor gave a couple of helpful comments and it was clear he'd read the paper with care. Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. Rejected for arbitrary reasons. Two refereere reports and no comments from the editor on the reports. Although the paper got accepted, the quality of the comments and the editor's comments were beyond laughable and actually really make me regret having it sent there but it is too late. One referee was in favour of a strong R&R, the other recommended rejection on the basis of mathematical error, the AD seconded the latter. Three rounds: one major + two minor (the last one being really minor, like copy-editing and missing references minor). Also useful comments from the editor. Three reports, all of high quality, within 2 months. Good reviews by the referee and the AE. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. Waste of money. Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days. Fast and fair. Too long waiting time. The article went online first very quickly after acceptance, which was nice. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". Editor was a bit harsh. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. Very fast process. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Much better than regular EL. Editor and referees seemed willing to listen to reason which encouraged me to work hard on the revision and make my case when I thought reports misguided. 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) Editor did seem to have read the paper, possibly in more detail than the referee who comments several thing that was included in paper. 6 months for useless reports. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. Horrible. Rejected by editor. Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. forthcoming papers by the Chief editor shoshana. Not even one comment. Terrible experience - slow and unjustified decision. 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. 2 rejects, 1 R&R. 7 months for 1 decent report and 1 poor report. Very low process. Explains longish time to first review. Excellent reports. If Minnesotas one of the least woke departments, why does EJMR hate it so much? Referees ok, not great. reports show referees were serious. Referee one was inexpert in the field, and suggested we cite mostly irrelevant papers published by the handling editor. Very short to the point referee report. With referees in 15 days of submission. 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). Referee seemed have little idea about the field or didn't read my 7 page paper. We sent two more emails about the status of the paper and did not get a response from the office. Form letter. Very quick and extremely professional. Finance Job Rumors (489,506) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,795) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,021) China Job Market (103,531) Industry Rumors (40,351) Rejected but with excellent reports. very good experience and fast acceptance after addressing referees' comments. Two very constructive reports. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. Another one was sharp. The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. said it was a matter of fit. Rather uninformative feedback: feeling that it is not suitable for publication and unlikely to be favorably reviewed. Good experience. It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. editor very helpful. One useful report out of three. 3rd round 1 month and then accepted. Found out it was rejected only by contacting them. Desk Reject took 4 months. Efficient. Really involved editor and a referee who suggested changes that, while complex, were easy to deal with. Referees all showed an understanding of the paper and suggestions were useful. He requested that we sent him a reminder after a week. When we chased, we received detailed referee reports and R&R quickly, but were given just 2 weeks to make massive changes to the paper - we withdrew and used comments to publish elsewhere. When do I give up? Horrible experience. Not a great experience. In May 2016 the editor promised a decision within a days. However, he referred to incorrect and minor points made by the referees. "In order to speed up and improve the submission process for both authors and referees, we have raised the number of papers that we reject without seeking reports.". Professional reports. However comments from the negative one are the most detailled and helpful. Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. No reason given. There was no mistake. great experience. Desk reject in 4 hours. Reasonable. Withdrew article from consideration after 18 months of wait. The editor did not read the paper and just sided with the hostile referee. I wish them luck. Initial response was quick. After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. Editor skimmed it at best and decided to reject without comments. A journal to avoid. Desk rejected in a few days. Slow. His own comments were not based on the reports. desk rejection within 1 week. Process lasted one year with nontransparent, contradictory review process. The overall comments are OK. Actually, not as bad as many people think.Reports by referee and AE were of little help (they raised a few valid points), but this can happen at any other journal too. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. Reasonable response. Resulted in much better paper. Not enough novelty. Desk reject after about 2 weeks; friendly letter, not sufficiently novel enough (which is fair, not my best paper, IJIO 4th shot, paper now at 2nd tier field). Isnt it written that this journal focuses on mathematical reasoning instead of sticking to conventional setup? The editor decided major revision. 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). Fast turn around with great referee reports that significantly improved the paper. Although QJE may be one of the oldest professional journal of economics published in the English language, it is also stale. Desk reject within two weeks. Almost happy. One great referee, one ok. Super fast process. The quality of the report was disappointing. One referee report was fine. Pleasant first publication experience. High quality reports and useful comments from the editor. The referee reports were fairly good. Desk reject within a few days. 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit. The three reviewers really went through the proof, I was a little impressed by their comments. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again, Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees. One obviously senior who doesn't care, openly says didn't read some parts. Desk reject in two days for not being general enough, $132 fee not refunded. improved paper based on comments. "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. Rejected with 2 reviews on the grounds of insufficient contribution to literature. He made the most stupid argument to reject the paper. Despite being so tough, all comments were fair and refs wrote great reports that dramatically improved the paper. Soon it became like a bar that doesn't kick out any assholes and now its a collection of assholes who happen to do economics. the website was hackedthe report was good, and the associate editor is very nice. New editor apologized for the delay and handled the rejection quickly. Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. No reason provided, in line with the journal policy. Not only is it accepted, but it also becomes a much better paper now. Rejection came on Easter morning. Two horribly low quality reports. Editor said all refs must agree for acceptance but only one ref report provided! Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. Desk reject two days after I submitted the manuscript. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. Do you really understand American history? Very efficiently run journal (at least my experience). And mentioned class struggle. After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected. Referee recommends conditional accept but AE strongly against publication. Rejected a letter with one referee report but overall experience was good: about 6 weeks, comments sensible will try to implement. Overall, not bad experience. That's right. topics should probably be closely related to banking. Only had to face one reviewer in the second round. Reasonable referee report. Referees mixed. One ref in favor, one against. Avoid avoid avoid this outlet if you are looking for a serious journal that will follow a fair referee process. Very quick and professional editing. It was clear that the referees read the paper and provided appropriate comments. They never refunded my fee either. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Very quick response. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,806) Micro Job Rumors (15,245) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,027) China Job Market (103,534) AWFUL editorial work. Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. Standard experience with the JHR. Rogerson very quickly pointed out the paper did not merit publication. One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. Desk reject within a 10 day but editor provided a short 'referee' report mentioning five issues. A second round of minor revision was requested. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). Desk rejected after 3 days from Shleifer. game theoretic contribution not significant enough for publishing at this journal, three rounds of R&R (two with the referees, one with the editor); very good experience, reviews vastly improved the paper, Very fast review process (note: it was a special issue). Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. So if your topic is not within this field, the desk rejection is much more likely. Went from reject/resubmit to revise resubmit 1, revise resubmit 2, finally accepted. All the referees understood what I did in great detail. No feedback from handling editor, No refund. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO)
Caroline Simmons Wedding,
Pecan Grove Apartments,
Fair Play Cards Printable,
Picture Nasa Took On September 28 2021,
Articles E