Very good experience. First report provided helpful insights, second - only half page of general comments. But editor is very good, One referee report with no constructive comments. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. Although my article had Nikkei 225 index in it they rejected it anyway! One fairly high-quality report, one not-so good. This journal provides a lot of details to track your paper (in total, we got 6 change of status), however, the whole process took almost 6 months but the referee reports were ready in less than 2 months (probably because they get paid since submission is USD250). He suggested a general interest journal. Form-letter rejection. Quick responds. And the whole process took us 8 months. Great experience! Editor was Nielsen. Editor provided a letter with comments. They should just ask me $60. Professional co-editor and referee. He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. Repeated enquiries ("hey, its been a year now") have been followed by profuse apologies. A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. 1 report suggesting to cite the Editor's work and speaking about things outside of the scope of the paper. A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!! Time to accept less than 1 year. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. One (very) useful report and one useless, 5 months from submission to acceptance, Desk reject in an hour. Think I got lucky. I will submit again. With editor for 1.5 month. "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor. Too us more than a month to revise and still had doubts. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. There was a second round of ref. Comments are mainly about rephrasing implications and minor issues. The three reviewers really went through the proof, I was a little impressed by their comments. You have to earn it! Much better than plain vanilla Economics Letters. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. Editor recommended field journal submission. Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. Referee did not bother to read the paper. Not surprised to hear that the impact of the journal is going down. 2 reviewers, 1 poor, 1 quite demanding and useful. It was completely incoherent. one positive one negative, editor chose to reject. I will never submit there again, Excellent and constructive reports. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. This was back when Bill Evans was editor. Not very useful comments from any of them. Note: previous desk rejected paper there was published in a much better journal. Took 3 month for a simple "out of scope" notification!! Two referees were lukewarm but couldn't really point out too much that was wrong. Referees were obviously a bad choice for this topic. Frustrating. Second round was down to one ref and editor, third round was just editor. Editor is very efficient and professional. 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. Editor rejected within less than 10 days. Article was rejected but the comments were generally helpful and thoughtful. 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. Desk rejected in 1 week. Rejected by an Associate Editor, who actually read the paper, got the main idea clearly, and wrote a 2 full-page report with reasoning why this is not for JET and what journal outlets might be considered. Took almost 3 months for the first reports. Ref report definitely helpful. Horrible experience. Would submit again. Good referee report + some comments from AE. Definitely recommend submitting to the journal. Amazing experience. 1 useless report, 1 very helpful and 1 okay. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. Good report. Referees' comments were useful. Two high quality reports. Average Quality R-Reports, one missed one has good comments. Harold Cole was excellent as editor. seven weeks to say poor fit when similar and cited papers are published there. Nice reports. It took the referees / editor 5 months to look at my revised script to then just accept it without any further comments. The editor (Hongbin Li) rejects because of lack of fir with the journal's mission. Editor desk rejected after a couple of weeks due to lack of fit. Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. Good for knowing what people didn't like, but not clear how to improve. Poorly managed. Andrew deJong The Effect of Common Ownership on Pricing: Evidence from the Airline Industry . Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help. Reports are not great. One report was very constructive and helped improve the qualitiy of the paper. 9 month for two reports. Re-submission took a week to be finally be accepted. Overall, good experience. 2 referee reports: first one, r&r; second one, reject and resubmit. The editor received the report within a month. It than took the editor (Mark Watson) another 6 months to read reports and make a decision. 2 days from submission to desk rejection. So-so experience. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. Referee comments were pretty minor. 1 good report and 1 not so good. Only got form letter. The paper is not of the interest of SCW readers! Good process. Editor was Mogde. quick process, helpful reports and editor comments, Kind reject from the editor after a week, providing reasons why the paper was rejected, 6 months to receive 2 reports. Finally very well handled by the editor. Also a very kind editorial letter. Very fast process. Will never submit again. Editor argued I had observational data and no identification, hence instant rejection. They have not released it, sorry. Economics Job Market Rumors. Only quibble is one referee got stuck on a (not applicable) approach and wouldn't let go. Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. Very fast process, that is why I submitted to the journal. Bad experience with both the referee reports and the editor, Single RR, Editor said couldn't find a second reviewer. Manuscript was withdrawn - editor had assigned referees within 3 months of submission but then these were apparently not forthcoming. Report from ref1 and AE were very helpful. We sent two more emails about the status of the paper and did not get a response from the office. One magnificient + one so-so ref report. Report was fair and helpful and editor's letter was kind. A true scholar and a gentleman. Worst experience with a journal so far. After waiting for 9 months, I sent an email to the editor asking about the paper status. Two referee reviews. 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). Some of the people at my lower No ref reports, 1 sentence from editor. Over the past six years, the department has placed a total of 128 graduates in academic, research, and government jobs. I dont care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. I expected something more serious from a journal with such a high submission fee. Helpful comments. Not signed by any specific editor, so not even sure who handled the manuscript. Andrew Foster took a full month for a desk without a comment. Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. Expedient. Accepted without revisions. The editor said that referee is an expert in this field. However, it was relatively fast at least. 3 weeks for a desk reject. After more data were collected, the editor said "a referee suggested empirical work was not serious enough." solution? Do not submit to this journal. PhD Program Administrator: Mirtha Cabello, cabello@bu.edu, (617) 353-4454. One where the only material comment has a grammatical error that makes understanding it difficult? 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) one so-so report and one excellent report, Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics. Absolutely pathetic handling by Horner. Quickly accepted after the revisions were completed. After careful consideration, the JAPE editorial team considers the paper is largely a statistics exercise. One excellent report, one mediocre report. Very good experience, the editor (Aizenman) was very fast. Desk Rejected after 2 days. Not a fit to the journal! After 6 months I got an extremely low quality report; looked like the reviewer had no idea about the paper or even the field in general. It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. When pressed, editor said we weren't doing the same things as everyone else. Editor clearly read the paper. Extremely poor experience. This is designed to reduce the overall turnaround time for the journal, especially given the high volume of submissions." Editor should know better. Name Department Contact Subfield . Desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. Good experience! Never submit to this journal again. I suppose if your work is primarily empirical then you'd better do something that's close to the editor's personal interest, otherwise there will always be the criticism that you need more theory. 6 weeks to get 3 referee reports. Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. Rejected in 24 hrs, no reason given. 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." Referee clearly didn't read the paper carefully. Taiwan was born in Wuhan. the ?Nash? Desk reject after 3 days. Paper not anywhere close to editor's field of interest. Editor (frank) did not read the paper and wrote 2 lines arguing that there were many papers addressing similar question (which was not entirely true). Editor sends paper just to his/her peers with predefined ideas. Reason - paper was too specialized. 1 month desk reject. One furstrating assertion by the editor. Waiting for R&R results. The journal is a joke! In all the rejection was fair. One referee report was very detailed. One good report, the other one poor. Overall, great experience. Fast reviews with reasonable comments. Accepted w/o further revision 18 days after resubmit. Pleasant experience. After 12 months the paper was not even sent out to review or rejected despite 10 emails. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable commentvery well run journal, fast and no submission fee! Second one didn't understand the paper and said it was already written. Minor changes, though. Editor highly incompetent. Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA)Berkeley - USA, Director of Economics and Data fair and efficient process. Good experience. Referee reject after more than a year. The editor (Ravikumar) gave me an R&R with reasonable requirements. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). Only one referee report in 11 months? Excellent process. But the other one was useless; it's like a collection of "minor comments.". Rejection based on fit. Applying for academic jobs. $100 fee refunded. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. Desk rejected by editor, who said that editor in chief rejects ~40% and he rejects about the same. Got rejection after 4 months. Good experience. Reflects really poorly on the journal to keep this guy. It was clear the editor asked a former student to be the referee, I guess the editor does not feel positively about the paper. Clear suggestions with R&R decision from Hillary Hoynes. Gave a quick explanation and said they did a thorough read of the paper. Basically, just a short e-mail saying that it cannot be accepted and it is more suited to some other types of Journals. We did. Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. E. Two detailled and useful reports, one irrelevant. However, everything was fixed, and overall I am happy. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Low quality comments from Frank Sloan. The referee told us to delete the literature review. Many thanks to the editor for most constructive comments. These rankings consider only the youngest economists registered with RePEc. The time to response is not long as well. 3 Reports. 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. Had to withdraw after waiting for nearly a year and a half. Ridiculous experience. Extremely bad experience with this journal. One referee report excellent. Two reports, both harsh and recommended reject. 6 months for a referee report written by a plain imbecile who could not even derive Proposition 1. All of them are much speedier and you will actually get helpful comments that will improve your paper. Although other comments on this journal say that the review process is long, I had very different experience. Due to a "typographical error" in sending me an email, I had to wait an extra month (and after I emailed asking for a status update) to learn of the rejection - wasting time I could have spent submitting it to another journal. Bad experience. Overall positive experience. Despite the rejection, referees raised valid points that we can adress to improve our paper and provided a way forward. One very good review, two quite missed points. All editors have lined up to publish their own papers (just see the forthcoming papers, 3 (three!!) We give the editors one week to judge the overall contribution and if acceptable send your paper to an associate editor. 1 extremely helpful report and 2 so so ones. Ridiculous. When do I give up? Said the contribution was too small, which I accept. Process lasted one year with nontransparent, contradictory review process. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. very disappointing. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. Contacted them, told me they will try to send it out to reviewers. Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. Didn't let it go, Editor told him to "#"# off and published the paper anyway. "We are hesitant to publish purely empirical papers" comment could have been boilerplate but seemed uninformative, Exceptionally quick turnaround times. Excellent Experience. No specfic comment on the paper. The IJIO has a rapid review process. Reports were pretty good. Second round--took less than a month to get 2 detailed second reports from referees--impressive! Anti-intellectual reasoning. One refree report who made very useful comments that helped significantly improve the paper. Reasonably quick. Referees didn't get the point of the paper, my fault. National Bureau of Economic Research. First two reports were "not general interest enough" and didn't have much to say substantively as a result (1-2 pages). they should have desk rejected, AE told me: you should not be surprised that IER typically does not appreciate this kind of work.. they wasted my time. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Once that work was published, he finally accepted the paper. Clearly, this journal is the main outlet for randomized trial papers and not much else. Mostly decent reports raising fair points, OK experience. Fair decision. When we inquired after 6 month, we were told to be patient. Not enough novelty. I urged the editor to give me reports 3 months after the initial submission. Unacceptable waiting time. Very good journal, with reactive editorial assistant (Sabah Cavalo), and very good and constructive comments. One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. Revision accepted after one day. Very good experience. Ref. 0/10 would recommend. 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. The second round of review only took 3 weeks. "The empirical econometric novelty of the paper is not substantial enough ", Desk rejection within five days / Poor allocation of coordinating editor (microeconometrician for a time series paper), Quick desk rejection after manuscript ID was assigned. We saw no referee report and only had to deal with editor comments/suggestions. Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. My first submission in AE and it is the best experience ever. Both reports positive (one minor/one major revision recommended). Think one more time before sending here. Two referee reports: 1 seemed to miss basics of the paper and didn't provide useful insight/comments and the other was exhaustive, insightful, and useful moving forward. Editor and refs liked the topic but not the empirical strategy. Nice reports that improve the quality and readability of the paper. Useless experience. Reasonable comments from referees. Good quality reports for a low-ranked journal, though. Very tough report on the first RR, extensive changes suggested, though all feasible and mostly all improved the quality of the paper. Excellent editor, balanced referees and good timing. Fairly long wait though. Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. One useful report out of three. It is frustrating to get rejected after convincing the referees. We'll see. Overall, great experecience! Offers and negotiating. The associate Editor Ali Kutan has rejected the paper. Unhelpful, rambling. Short unhelpful referee reports which ask to cite referees. Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. Big lie. improved paper based on comments. smooth in general. The peer review process was fast. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. In December 2016 we managed to get a reply from the managing editor with the same story, that the decision was a matter of days. Strongly recommend submitting there. 2 weeks for desk rejection. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. rejected after 2 rounds of revisions. Neither of the two reviewers seemed t have read the paper. Fast and serious journal. Good turnaround time. The editor brought in a tie breaker 3rd, who wrote a very terse reject. Editor provided quick and fair comments why the paper is not suitable for the journal. 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. No input from editor either. 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. Rejected in 4 days, editor said work was done net resting but not broad enough. A year after submission without result? One referee liked the paper but had doubts about the Y variable (kiss of death); other referee turned in a three page report but missed the point of the paper completely (while asking us to delete the explanation which would have answered his questions). Fair editor. Bigger joke than the article I sent them. Liked the paper but contribution too small. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. Rejected and no reason given. AVOID it. Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California (USA) Revision took about 1 week, one of the reviewers requested additional data/info about the methods used. I felt as if 65$ has evaporated from my pocket. Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. It seems to me that this was an easy way for the new Editor to reject the paper! After this thrid email, the paper moves up and it takes 11 weeks to get referee rejection (quality fo the two reports: poor, they wont improve my paper).
6 Year Presidential Term Pros And Cons,
Reese's Logo Generator,
Union County Abc Product Search,
Articles E