Overall good experience. Referees rejected the paper or asked for major revisions. Useless reports. Worst experience ever. others ref reports okay. Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING. Comments are mainly about rephrasing implications and minor issues. 1 months for desk reject. Unfair decision. I am asked to send to another journal because the paper is not a good fit, the editor is very nice, professional and efficient. Duration: 2 years. One referee report excellent. One of those cases where the paper though rejected improved significantly as a result. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. Do not submit there. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. Fair rejection. I had. Excellent communication with editor. The senior is useless as s/he was not happy that the paper is against an established theory. 1 Month and 10 days for first decision is too long. The referee was clearly trying to protect his own paper on a related topic; half of the bullet points referred to that paper. Great experience overall, Editor decided not to wait for the late referee not to slow down the process. Referees reasons to reject the paper are not convincing enough. My experience with other journals when there is only 1 referee, the editor always provides a report detailing their reasons for accepting or rejecting the paper. Even though the outcome is positive, I blame the editor for not selecting competent enough referees to begin with. The status are always the same "under review". Report was fair and helpful and editor's letter was kind. AWFUL editorial work. Is "have u told ur mother" am automated script, or truly deranged person? Good turnaround time. Editor appeared to have at least glanced at the paper. Nice experience, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. Paper sent to an editor with completely different interests. Efficient process and fast decision. Receive desk rejection in 24 hours, editor read the paper and suggested to top field journal. Fast reviews with reasonable comments. Very disappointed at the editor who made a decision based on such a low quality report. 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. Editor chose to follow the suggestion of the AE. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Fast and serious journal. My previous rejection there was north of 6 months One very low quality report, one very thorough report. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. These rankings consider only the youngest economists registered with RePEc. highly unprofessional, the report is not useful, comments make little sense and contradict to the extant literature on the topic. Fast desk reject (Ciccone), after few days. Helpful editor. Fairly quick acceptance. Editorial processes were very fast. Useless experience. Took about two weeks. Less than insightful comments by an editor clearly hastily read the paper. Two useful reports that improved the paper. 2 rounds (1 major R and 1 minor R), one report each time, very fast acceptance after minor R round (less than a month), Fast and to the point reports with reasonable requests for r&r. (This would have been easy to see from reading the intro before sending this to reviewers why not desk-reject instead of wasting author and reviewer time?). None of the criticism was fatal and most was stylistic. Desk rejected within 1 week. Decent reports highlighting different issues, mostly sympathetic, but tough. Waste of time. One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. Good experience, even though a reject. One referee had clearly read the paper. High quality reports and useful comments from the editor. 4 weeks for first response. If Minnesotas one of the least woke departments, why does EJMR hate it so much? Too narrow-minded editor. Referee seemed have read just the abstract. Easy/doable revisions were asked. Very fast process, that is why I submitted to the journal. Education, Labor, Gender, Development and Public Policies. Excellent Editorial Comments. Fast R&R with reasonable reports and encouraging editor letter. Very pleased. Disappointing outcome, but OK overall experience. Rejected with one referee report in just under a month. But the comments helped. Extremely constructive and useful comments, clearly from people from diverse backgrounds who engaged deeply with the paper (2 economists, 1 polsci). Then again, it only took a couple of weeks to get the rejection. ", Fact: the SAT and GRE are just thinly veiled IQ tests. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. Editor sends paper just to his/her peers with predefined ideas. Got the refund soon after request. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. Much better than overal reputation of journal. Manuscript number assigned at 10AM, rejected by 7PM. But referees are very negative. Recommended a more specialized journal to try next. Not a great experience! Good experience. Editor (Taylor) gave additional advice. The co-editor gave very specific, though difficult requests for the revision. Fast desk reject. Referee says R&R, but editor decides to reject outright. Nedless to say I got no referee report even after asking. Good first round reports, took a while to respond to all the comments. Resubmitted within the same day. Editor then agreed. Difficulties to reach the editor, but useful report and very fast decision (1 day) after submitted the revised manuscript. Job Market. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. Will not consider it again. Two referee reports: one decent, one poor. No comments, but very fast. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. The paper is in between energy and finance, and the referees were more knowledgable of Energy than Finance, where our approach is more standard I'd say. The editor did not even realized this and rejected. Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. Both referees clearly read the paper and discussed potential concerns of the analysis. Referee's comment was useful but contained too many extensions. Two days to desk reject, no comments, just boilerplate. Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. Round 2 also yielded good referee reports too. The paper was published in 2016, Decent referee reports that indeed improve the paper. Editor slept on the paper's submission history and the reviewer's dishonesty. Good quality reports for a low-ranked journal, though. Very professionalthe referee reports were fine but rather tough given the quality of the journal, 3 rounds, all comments addressed, rejected because 1 reviewer did not read the last version. A second round of minor revision was requested. Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. Duh, Very helpful response from editor giving specific reasons that the manuscript would not be sent to referees, Thanks for your joining the Society, by the way, we don't think your historical paper with brand new historical data is right for a history journal. not worth the time and effort. Analytic number theorists: your opinion on TK's claimed disproof of the RH ? Economics Job Market. Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. Nothing more frustrating than paying to submit a paper that was desk rejected after 2 months with no reason given for rejection "I find the overall contribution too small to justify publication in AEJ". Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. Editor was our de facto 2nd referee. Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. The worst experience so far. Very efficient journal, 3 very helpful reports from a coeditor and 2 referees. Had to send several emails inquiring about the status. 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. Finance Job Rumors (489,493) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,790) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,019) China Job Market (103,530) Industry Rumors (40,349) Short straight-to-the point referee report with a few nice points, no bullc*ap. They should just ask me $60. Both reviews helpful - one very extensive. It than took the editor (Mark Watson) another 6 months to read reports and make a decision. Good referee reports. Two months for desk reject -- no comments given. 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. Fast, bad luck with the editor who simply did not seem to see the point of the paper. Good experience. The editor had good words about the paper but one ref didn't like it, so he rejected it. Total turn around time was about 40 days. Pok Sang Lam rejected with few comments. Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. Desk rejection in one week. High Quality Editing. Very good editor recommending a field journal. Desk reject in 1 week. Bad experience. Very fast process. Editor desk rejected after a couple of weeks due to lack of fit. The law scholar did not like technical thing but I just used. Not very impressed. Very helpful reports. Comments dubious at best. The new editor (Leeat Yariv) did a great job: She indeed read the paper and gave constructive comments. Would choose again. Four RR rounds. Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work.". They pointed out several issues of my paper, but they are either wrong or something that can be easily fixed. Desk rejected the next day. They just pocketed the submission fee. Smooth process and manageable referee report. Obviously, being turned down after a two-year long process and a very extensive revision is bad for a young author. AER:Insights - Larry Samuelson, Very polite, slightly more than standard rejection letter, saying - not a good fit, although enjoyable. Very good comments from both reviewers and the editor, Frank Sloan. Excellent ref report. Rejected in 24 hrs, no reason given. Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. In a word, this is not a serious journal. Desk rejection in 3 days. Very professional handling of the editor with very detailed comments and helpful reports. She admitted having forgotten about it until 8 months later and sent us a rejection. Quite fast luckily. Comments from editor suggested issues were "fixable" but then basically suggested changing the ID strategy, which basically amounts to writing a whole new paper. Fast Review process. Desk rejected by Katz within 24 hours. Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. My fault for not discussing that up front. Decent reports, no complain. Also the editor gave us good comments. accepted immediately after minor revision. Doesn't seem it was read beyond the title. It is run by "Kirk", [1] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. Should have read the comments here about how badly run this journal is. RAND prefers IO topic. One very good referee report, based on which the paper is improved significantly. One good referee, one ok, one terrible. After doing what the, very stupid, referee asked he said "not a big enough contribution". Waste of time and money. Overall, good experience. Held my paper for a full year and rejected it on a split decision with one ref suggesting an RR and the other a reject. Therefore, we have decided not to review the paper. It would be a positive experience if submission were free. Placement Officers: Pete Klenow 650-725-2620 klenow@stanford.edu. Slow process (but exactly as advertised) and fair judgment. Fair and useful comment by the editor. I declined the offer to resubmit. If you need a fast turnaround, this is not the journal for you! Editor says "..his delay is mainly the result of needing to get a second editorial assessment which suggested this paper's arguments are less likely to find a responsive audience in our journal's readership". After ref rejection at an AEJ submitted here we followed editors suggestion and submitted to JUE. It took 3 weeks to get a desk reject letter. Comments were helpful. Rare experience where every round made paper much better. Desk rejected after more than 5 months, avoid, International Review of Applied Economics, receive first response within 2 weeks. Disappointed. Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Journal of the European Economic Association. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!! Two helpful reports. 2022 Job Market Candidates . 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. Two rounds of R&R! In May 2016 the editor promised a decision within a days. The paper was "with the editor". Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and about two months in the second round. Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. Response time was decent. Very clear that two of the three referees hadn't read the paper. One of the best run journals in macro. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. Two reports (half-page each) citing minor issues. Excellent referee reports, with useful input from the editor (Auerbach) regarding how to handle them. took 5 months. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. Generous comments from editor and referees, lenghty referee reports; rejection because of one referee even though I discuss his point. Not a good fit. Good process. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. Editor is bonkers, he said article was outside scope of journal.when it was clearly regiona/urban economics article. After waiting for 6 months received one crap report which is absolute garbage! 150$ is quite a lot of money. Very good experience. both reviewers rejected for different reasons, reports were overall helpful but some comments showed lack of understanding. Each report was less than 600 words long with 3-4 main comments but not in much dept (not even full references included). Also sent some emails to the editors but have no replies. Both read, understood and gave a few comments. Anti-intellectual reasoning. The editor said there was issues with finding referees. Desk rejected after 23 hours. In short, he left us only one option: not to resubmit. Referee comments were useful, editor clearly did not understand judging from his remarks, which made it frustrating. This would be fine if desk-reject was motivated by "not a good fit" or such. Kind, thoughtful, and brief editor letter. Reports were very positive, it took us 12 weeks to resubmit. AER Insights: Generic rejection without any thought or suggestion. Reviewers gave substantive comments and significantly improved the paper. Editor did not even read the paper correctly. Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. The only referee who respond wrote some nonsense without reading the paper. Good communication and seemed very efficient. Culter said that there was backlog at JHE. Replied within a week but editor clearly read the paper and identified main points which, however, seemed not important to him to warrant publication in RES. The AE was gentle and actually read my paper. Initial demanding R&R. and then took another seven months. Good experience overall. Seemed like a fair decision. interesting and polite reports. R&R was helpful. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. Desk reject two days after I submitted the manuscript. Considered waste of time here. Robert J. Barro desk rejected the paper in less than 24 hours. Desk rejection would be normal, but the journal has changed dramatically the orientation towards family firms.

Why Did Edwin Hodge Leave Chicago Fire, What Is Uplink And Downlink Frequency In Satellite Communication, Ryan Coogler Production Company, Is Ben Crawford Michael Crawford's Son, Articles E