Editor desk rejected stating that paper (which was on the program of Top 3 conferences etc.) Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper. Complete waste of time!! Process seemed very fair. No reason given (just lack of fit..), no suggestions to improve, no money back. Particularly, one of the referees seemed like he didn't read a single word past the intro. Two months for desk reject -- no comments given. fast turnaround. I spent less time and less effort revising 30 pages papers in other similar ranked journals than in EL, Excellent process and editor provided useful comments and guidance, Very pleasant experience very quick and the report professional. Extremely fast and with 2 high quality RRs. Not general interest enough. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. Editor makes no attempt to reconcile conflicting reports or, One good referee report. Very constructive and useful for revisions. Just one referee report. One referee not only did not read the paper but criticized something the paper does not do at all! 2 weeks). The editor, Gideon Saar, was lazy and did not read the paper. Slow as hell. Good reports. Garbage. One decent, the other sloppy. Desk reject after 30 hours, helpful comments from the editor. Editor read the paper and deskrejected in less than a week. Surprisingly efficient process given the other comments here on the journal. Fast and serious journal. Great experience. Great outcome. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. 1 was more positive and ref. AE rejected without commenting on referee report, At least a quick report with one good comment that can help to improve the paper, but with the other points highlighted by the referee were discussed in the paper. Horrible experience, and it is not even that good a journal! After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. Some good comments from reviewers, but all focused on marginal issues. Garbage journal, not a real journal, avoid. Was not worth waiting that long (this is an understatement). I must say second reviewer report was 1 and a half line and in my view it is the most unscientific report I have ever seen. Was desk rejected in one day. had no economic relevance and was not worth being sent out to a referee. Have they done first-round interviews? Job market wiki Economics Job Market Rumors One short and one longer report. ANyway, I think this is a risk when submitting to general interest journals. JEDC is well run. When he rejected the paper for the Economic Systems, he then asked me to submit the same paper to his journal "Emerging Markets Finance and Trade." My previous rejection there was north of 6 months One very low quality report, one very thorough report. Editors keep delaying despite returned reports, seems to be a pattern with this journal. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Good turnaround time. Poorly managed journal. Was a longshot. Great editor with quick response time too. EJM - Econ Job Market Two very useful ref reports in the first round. Terrible to treat junior people this way. The referee is clearly not up to the task. Extremely fast and thoughtful. He made the most stupid argument to reject the paper. Useful reports. solution? The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress. Excellent and detailed report, fair decision. Desk rejected in 8 days. Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines). Based on the comments of one more referee with few points, he rejects. One of the worst experience I have ever had. Disappointed. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. Submission refund. After fully addressing the reviewers' comments at each round, the article got rejected in the third round with a totally "ex nihilo" issue risen by one of the reviewers, who never mentioned the issue before. The paper was a very good fit though. Two referees made great reviews and very detailed comments. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. UCLA Economics. Withdrew article from consideration after 18 months of wait. good process overall, Good experience. Paper drastically improved through process. A five pages fantasy report written by a phd-student who did not read the paper. No referee reports, just got notified I was accepted. Will submit again (other work, of course) on the basis of professionalism and treatment. Editor provided no additional comments. 1 Month from Submission to a very positive R&R. Academic Jobs Wiki | Fandom Near-perfect experience. Comments were non-constructive and some were even wrong. He even signed the letter. Poor, self serving. 1 month desk reject. Poor quality reports. After waiting for 6 months, I sent a polite email to the editor asking if the paper fell through the cracks. Referee did not even sent a report after year and a half. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. Both read, understood and gave a few comments. Very helpful referee reports. To summarize, this reviewer apparently thought he had better English than Shakespeare. Going into the ninth month with no response. One positive and two negative reports. Desk reject after 3 days. Four line referee report written in a hurry before deadline and before ref obviously had to jet off on holiday. Horner is a disaster! Very quick response. Avoid that journal. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. Suggested a more specialized journal. Not even a single remotely useful comment. Two very good referee reports. The revision review was quite fast too. Fair process overall. Single-blind review system for a 250 bucks fee. In a typical year, every MIT Economics PhD graduate finds a job. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. two referee reports. Costas Meghir responses all submissions. 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). Editor was a bit harsh. Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Putea MatuaWellington - New Zealand, Assistant Director, Economics The status are always the same "under review". No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. I am making revisions. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. Will submit again. almost useless and the editor is too slow. He does not read the paper, or he has no expertise. Editor did seem to have read the paper, possibly in more detail than the referee who comments several thing that was included in paper. Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. Editor accepted the article within one week. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. Desk reject within two days. Went downstairs for some snack. I assume he did not like the topic at the end. After doing what the, very stupid, referee asked he said "not a big enough contribution". It has been about 16 months now. Five weeks, submission to rejection. Reasonable decision. Job Market. Got 3 ref reports - 1 RR 2 reject. Online in 2 months. Although the referee comments were in detail some of them were really out of the scope. Will not consider again. Reasonable referee report. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. Suggested Ecological Economics. 1 R&R round. In short, he left us only one option: not to resubmit. Two referee reports were really good. Amazing turnaround. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. This journal is a scam! Submitted the paper 11:45. Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. 2 referees clearly read the paper and made some good and insightful comments. One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. Horrible editorial process. All other comments were mentioned and addressed in the paper. Considering withdrawing. Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. Very respectless! One unprofessional and clueless referee. 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. 2 poor quality reports after 8 months of being under review. One ref suggested I send it to JPE before trying places like EJ or ReStat. Very fast; useful, reasonably positive report despite rejection. Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. Reason cited: weak paper. very good experiencefast and helpful comments from the co-editor and two refereesAverage time between the submission and response is about 1.5 months, well run journal. Overall decent and professional expert reports. I revised as a new submission based on comments from a previous reviewer at the journal, referee report was short, but demonstrated expertise, could have addressed all of the comments but ultimately rejected under KS. Very efficient indeed!!!!!!! The first round took too long (~10 months). Associate editor rejected on poor grounds. Armstrong is so much better than Hermalin 6 months for the first R&R (2 referee reports plus a very detailed report from the editor), then 3 months for the 2nd R&R, then the paper was accepted. The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. Rejected because topic did not fit the journal. Despite disappointing turnout, reports were good with useful and specific suggestions on ways to improve the paper. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. The review process yielded good referee reports in round 1. Great experience; precise and informed referee report; 1st round for major improvements, 2nd round pretty much converged to acceptance. Got reject after a year and half of work! Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject. Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. Desk rejected after more than 5 months, avoid, International Review of Applied Economics, receive first response within 2 weeks. Reviewers gave substantive comments and significantly improved the paper. The referee did not understand the basic assumption of the model. One absolutely incompetent referee. No meaningful comments. So unprofessional and shameful. Very clear and good process. Complete waste of time. accepted immediately after minor revision. Poor and unhelpful referee reports, club journal. They never refunded my fee either. Referee reject without any comments after 14 months of chasing the journal. Round 2 also yielded good referee reports too. Desk rejected within 7 days. Almost one year later from submission, have no answer about my paper. One week to accept. 1 useless report, and second was useful report. But then again it was my fault, I didn't run an experiment! Revised carefully and resent, then they sent to another editor and another reviewer whose report contradicted the first and was very vague. International Journal of Game Theory?(Springer). Editor response, not a fit to the journal, too theory! but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. They have not released it, sorry. Desk reject two days after I submitted the manuscript. Comments were helpful. One very good report, another one heavily biased against methodology, yet helpful. Revision accepted for publication in one week. It ended up being published in a higher ranked journal. After two interventions got 1 ridiculous report. Suggested changes and several other outlets. Will never submit to this journal again. Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago. Referee was constructive and provided helpful comments. Very good experience. Incredibly unprofessional. Annoyed because all of the concerns were addressed and yet she could not be bothered to re-read the paper. Emailed the editor at JPE for a brief explanation of why the paper was desk rejected so that I could improve it. One referee commented that we didn't make a methodological contribution and asked why economists should care about Y. Editor gave a two sentence summary the paper, mentioned two additional recent articles from their journal that might be useful, and suggested an alternative journal. Got a form letter. 2 months for a generic desk rejection with no comment whatsoever.. but of course I am not in the club. Fast decision after resubmit. Katz very thoughtful and helpful editor letter. 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". Desk reject after 2 months. Less than 24 hours.Rogert J. Barro was the editor. Editor claimed to have two reports but gave me only one. No flyouts yet. Rejected at ECMA, told a great fit at ReSTAT, desk rejected with generic letter after two days (and I'm in the club), 2.5 months for a desk reject with no feedback (labor paper). Awful experience. Very fast process, that is why I submitted to the journal. Scam. 18 days, no indication that either adstract or paper was read. 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. Poor / no justification for decision. Fast turnaround and good comments. Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. Excellent experience. Very good reports that help us to improve the paper a lot. Submitting to JME first was really worth it. Lots of puffed up explanation marks and faux outrage. 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. Referee obviously has no clue of what's going on. very efficient process but experience depends crucially on editor. One of my best experiences. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. Second one didn't understand the paper and said it was already written. Serious referee report, but without any helpful particular suggestion. Rejection without arguments/referee report. Stay away! Amazing experience. Will submit again. Two useful reports that improved the paper. After three months, I received an email from the editor that he still hasn't received the referee report, so he assumed the referee didn't like the paper and therefore he rejects it. Desk rejected, but after consultation with a referee who provided a mini-report. Didn't refund the submission fee. Extremely poor experience. Reasonably quick. Waited 2 months for the paper to be assigned to an editor. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. Good experience! Unfortunately the paper is rejected but I hope the reports help you improve the paper for another journal. Poor. Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. Made comments about Maximum Likelihood etc when I was using Method of Simuated Moments. Long wait but not a bad experience overall, referee comments were useful. One good referee, one ok, one terrible. Recently Announced. Liked the paper but contribution too small. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. Good ref reports. Barro says not sufficiently general interest, and advises to try a field journal instead. A shame the editor sided with the second. I think s/he would have been satisfied by an appendix section on the issue raised. Very efficient; referee reports are of pretty high quality. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list. Our paper is rejected after receiving one referee report. Deadline: 2023-03-06. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!! We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. Quite fast luckily. She admitted having forgotten about it until 8 months later and sent us a rejection. True, no time wasted, just the $125 submission fee. 4 weeks for first response. One referee read the paper line by line and gave constructive comments. It's been 10 months and still waiting for a first response of a short paper. Editor says, "your paper poses only a very marginal contribution to the literature in theoretical economics. Rejected on grounds of the paper not "establishing a new set of empirical facts that theory must confront" (Eric Leeper). Desk rejected in two weeks. Average Quality R-Reports, one missed one has good comments. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. May have a good chance at a higher ranked outlet but if considered speed and diversification then it was a good and correct decision to submit here. Good experience. Extensive reviews though. Although desk-rejected, I am very satisfied. Rejected within a few hours - unclear that associate editor had read the paper carefully, rather than just the limited 100 word abstract, since comments repeated points made within the paper.

Is Nasa Internship Prestigious, Bob Huggins House Morgantown, Mark Ruffalo Paralysis, Gary Holton Cause Of Death, When Does Mn Raffle 2022 Start, Articles E