Although our paper is rejected by the reviewer, I would be very happy to read the referee report. 1 was more positive and ref. Very tough journal with very extensive comments from 3 refs. Analytic number theorists: your opinion on TK's claimed disproof of the RH ? Serrano handled the manuscript. My paper on the "The Impact of MTV's 16 and Pregnant on Teen Childbearing" was quickly accepted due to its relevance and awesome nature. To be fair, some of the editors comments were sharp. No report yet. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. Although the other referee was positive, editor rejected it. Actually Journal of Economic Policy Reform. This guy really needs to not be a referee if he can not do a thorough job in actually reading paper. very good ref reports. Absolutely idiotic low-quality comments. Referee report was reasonable and improved the manuscript. Big lie. Learn More About Katia. Lengthy, in-depth reports. The editor did give us advice to split the paper in two, although he didn't really provide a justification for rejection. ref report had useful but not overly comprehensive suggestions. 84 W Santa Clara Street, Suite 770, San Jose, CA 95113. Fast and clean. After 8 months of waiting, got the shortest referee paper ever. He clearly outlined the major flaws and decided to desk-reject it. Quick rejection. 6 months was a lot to wait for one good report though Good feedback. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. Very good referee and associate editor report. Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). Poor quality reports. Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. Secodn editor waited almost 6 weeks after receiving the referee reports. Positive comments from the editor. reject after 3 months. Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. one positive, one negative report. Actually took nearly 15 months. The editor did not read the paper and just sided with the hostile referee. Referee reports were quite helpful in refining the paper. Thorough review. Really bad experience! 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. Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small). Comments by R1 were helpful, but 100+ days for 1 report is too long. Editor slept on the paper's submission history and the reviewer's dishonesty. 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. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". I wish them luck. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, Ore. Nearly 600 will lose their jobs. The peer review process was fast. Paper was accepted two days later. The final version of the proof was more elegant as a result, I am very appreciative of the reviewers and the editor. Two years later still waiting for referee reports. Two very constructive reports. Ljunquist is pretty passive. 2 weeks for desk rejection. I don't think he/she took a wee bit of pain to find out the context. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. I got two rounds of R&R. Editor agreed = reject. One rejected outright, one offered R&R. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. One very good referee report, based on which the paper is improved significantly. Desk rejected in 8 days. Wouldn't submit here again. for a desk reject with quite boring paragraphs from the editor along the lines why this is not using Angrist-Pischke methods One of the referee reports was very well informed. Almost 8 months to acceptance, despite Revised version submitted after 5months. avoid. Overall smooth process. Absolutely pathetic. If you are an employer who would like to post hiring status information for positions at your institution, please contact EconTrack to register. Good reviews by the referee and the AE. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. They are also very slow! Desk rejected in less than one month. other outlets are suggested. One helpful (though very demanding) report, the second so-so. Deadline: 2023-03-06. Rejection reason shows Meghir did not read the paper, bad editor dull comments. A number of emails without reply since then. Katz was encouraging. Referee reject after more than a year. Just thoroughly unprofessional report. The editor had read the paper and provided guidance. It took six months for a single referee report (of exactly one paragraph of comments). Editor suggested field journal. Extremely poor experience for a journal charging submission fees. Useless comments. Comments were quite simple, I resubmitted after one month, and the editor accepted the paper after 40 days. Pretty clear that whoever desk rejected didn't even read (or couldn't understand) the paper. Hard to believe. 1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. Single-blind review system for a 250 bucks fee. Job Market. Clearly no effort was put into it. Good experience. Short unhelpful referee reports which ask to cite referees. Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal. Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). Over half a year for response from one referee who a) had no problems with the methodology, b) liked the writing, and c) thought it had a novel contribution. 3 detailed reports, and a summary from Hendren explaining the rejection. Complete waste of time. 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. He suspects he could not understand a yota. I heard rumors they make desk rejections using bots, this one actually looks like it. After waiting for 9 months, I sent an email to the editor asking about the paper status. Comments are constructive. Disappointing experience. Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. 1 very good referee reports, 1 mediocre, editor was nice. Reviewers made many incorrect comments and almost no useful comments, editor straight up said didn't read the paper, but reviewers are negative so reject. No refund. Great experience! Bazinga! is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? I was politely told that I should have cited more JRU papers. The structure of the game, the policy and strategy spaces and other concepts are not introduced with sufficient clarity. A five pages fantasy report written by a phd-student who did not read the paper. Okay experience overall, 3 weeks for a two sentence desk rejection which suggested submitting to a more specialist journal, Overall good experience. Editor wrote a few short comments. Very clear that two of the three referees hadn't read the paper. Considered waste of time here. 3 week desk reject. Would submit again. Sent a specialized financial accounting paper. Andrew Foster took a full month for a desk without a comment. Both reports were very shorts (one was just a few lines). Desk reject within 14 hours(!!!). Transfer from another Elsevier journal - additional round of R&R but easily satisfied and made the paper better. Referees all showed an understanding of the paper and suggestions were useful. Took 3 rounds for editor to realize terrible referee was a crackpot. One excellent report, one mediocre report. Economics Job Market Rumors . Editor read the paper and gave helpful feedback. The paper was accepted few days after the revised version has been submitted. quick. Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. Simply put, the reviewer does not believe in my results (simulations from calibrated macroeconomic model). Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. super slow for what they give. fair decision, Super quick desk rejection because paper uses archive data but isn't really econ hist, 6 months plus to first decision - then substantial time between R&R rounds, with pednatic comments which mostly wanted to remove the economics from the paper to the appendix. It was most likely copy-pasted from someone elses decision letter, and I know this because they forgot to change the name on it (yes, I received a decision letter with someone else's name on it). It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. Seems safe to ignore the submission guideline: "In tables, please report standard errors in parentheses but do not use *s to report significance levels.". 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. Good experience. It was clear that the referees read the paper and provided appropriate comments. It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response. A very good experience. Editor was a bit harsh. Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. I would submit again or recommend this outlet! 1 Ref suggested R&R, Galasso decided to reject, Two referees, one useful and helpful, the other clearly not an expert in the field. Excellent reports. Desk reject within 1 day. Referee reports were very brief and contained little in the way of substantive comments. Bad to useless reports after an unacceptably long response time. Ridiculous report by the most clueless referee who probably spend one hour only to read and review the paper altogether. Desk rejected in a month. Never again! Contribution too small. Ignored reputation of this journal being a small closed network (mostly WB) journal. Otherwise, efficient process, decent reports. Co-editor and one referee attacked the paper for something that the paper already explicitly adresses. Short straight-to-the point referee report with a few nice points, no bullc*ap. One magnificient + one so-so ref report. I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Seemed like a very long time to only receive one referee report. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). No feedback and no useful suggestion in the rejection letter. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable commentvery well run journal, fast and no submission fee! Referees basically thought contribution was too small to merit publishing. Accepted once I satisfied the referees. Useful and professional referee report . Very good experience. Reflects really poorly on the journal to keep this guy. Good comments, made the paper better. DR after one week. Useful comments from the editor (Stefan Nagel). However we had make all of the referee's suggestions and the outcome was not positive. Great turnaround I guess? 2 referee reports: 1 so-so and 1 extremely shitty. Less than insightful comments by an editor clearly hastily read the paper. On the downside, the time between each of the two rounds of R&R was longish. Contribution not general enough suggests Review of Economics and Statistics. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. Focus of decision appeared to be on the institutional context of the paper rather than considering the economics. Four months for a desk reject! Editor gives no justification whatsoever. Some fair comments. Special fast-track call. The revision review was quite fast too. About 10 weeks from submission to referee reject. But it does move my prior of affiliation doesnt matter, just the paper (yes, a prior that no one here seems to have). It took 4 months to get the reviews, but the reviews were excellent. Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. 6 weeks for a desk reject. Contribution not new enough. Every time I'm impressed by how precise the reviews and suggestions are. If you don't have that - expect to be desk rejected. Saying that the topic is not general enough. One referee report was very detailed. Pretty rough coments from an editor who clearly did not get the point of the paper. They just pocketed the submission fee. Editor read and carefully considered the paper. Expedient. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. Worst experience of my life. 5 months for a desk reject! Costas Meghir responses all submissions. Contribution too small. Much quicker response than suggestsed. The contributions are very thoroughly detailed in the introduction, ie, the referee had to read around 3 pages and took him/her 6 months to do so. Two straightforward R&R recommendations from referees. Bad referee reports. Referees reasons to reject the paper are not convincing enough. The policy of the journal is to let each author appoint the referees, which improves speed on one hand but generates citation groups on the other hand. Suggested top field journal. The IJIO has a rapid review process. Ridiculous. Editor rejected based on that. 2 years no reply, then short letter and reject, I would never send there again. Pretty stupid rationale based on lack of methodological innovation. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. 1 positive and 1 negative report. Slightly more informative than a desk rejection. If? Garbage. 1 very good referee report, 1 OK, 1 pretty bad (revealing that the referee was clearly a non-economist). The editor, Richard Rogerson, is very careful and handles the paper in a timely manner. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. Other two reports are fine, although one other also did not read a section, s/he says. Fair and quick process. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. The report I did get back (in the form of an email from the editor) was not very informative (referee claimed "expressing time series as deviations from trend does not produce a stationary time series". His reports were completely crap. Got desk reject within 2 weeks. The editor was fair and provided reasons why the paper was rejected. Pleasant experience. said it was a matter of fit. within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Depressing experience. 6 weeks to get desk rejected for not being of general interest. Not sure what the editor(s) are doing at this journal but whatever it is, it is not quality overseeing and editing of papers. Surprisingly, she had one-page long useful comments, which helped improve the paper. Very good comments from both reviewers and the editor, Frank Sloan. Pretty helpful reports. Reasonable decision. Joke rejection but not unexpected from this team. One referee provided lots of helpful comments and even some ideas for future research. Horioka the editor. Although my article had Nikkei 225 index in it they rejected it anyway! Desk reject in 4 hours. 1 good report and 1 not so good. One extremely hostile report written by someone who is clearly trying to delay my results from coming out and another one paragraph report recommending minor revisions. Three rounds: one major + two minor (the last one being really minor, like copy-editing and missing references minor). Desk accept? It took almost two month for a desk reject. Slow but good experience overall. Took 9 months for acceptance. However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. High Quality Editing. That was disappointing. Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. 1 months for desk reject. 1 month for R&R, 1 week for acceptance after revision submitted. Felt somewhat subjective. Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days. While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. Very clubby journal. 4 months with the editor before being sent to referees. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. Reject due to the non-response by the referee. Invited to revise and resubmit the paper. Lousy comments from the Editor in chief. great experience. Very slow and no much reason given for desk rejection. Three reports, all of high quality, within 2 months. very quick response and a useful referee report. He is the main contact person for employers who have questions about a candidate's vita . desk rejection because it is not a good fit and i am asked to send it to an economic journal --- while i mainly discussed with a very nice sociologist when writing this paper. Bad experience. Fit justification. Rejected after 2 weeks. Will not consider it again. The other `meh'. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. 2 detailed comments from referees. I got the referee reports after 2.5 months from submission. Glad that they didn't waste my time. Very polite desk rejection. Would choose again. Referee didn't think the contribution is significant enough, so straight reject. Rubbish report ! 4 weeks for desk rejection is too much. The paper was triying to test unit roots on capacity utilisation for a cross-section of countries to test some macro models; so it did stuff that even a Master's can understand. The editor talked about 4 ref reports. Eight months is a long wait though. Referee seemed have read just the abstract. Got a rejection within a couple of days without any constructive comment. Editor rejected. 1 Referee provided useful comments that improved the paper. Editor obviously read the paper and had great comments. Awful experience. The other report also helped in improving the paper. I'll definetly will submit again. Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days. Quick desk reject with a few comments from the editor. Would definitely submit here again. One report was very poor and full of bsh*t while the other was good. Helpful comments received from reviewers. Write any form of equation and you're skewered! Split referees, Adda came down on the side of the negative ones. I received my Ph.D. degree at the University of Chicago in 2022. Interesting use of a referee's time. 1 useless report, 1 very helpful and 1 okay. quality reviewers. Associate editor rejected on poor grounds. Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. At least they were fast. from AE, but editor rejected without explanation. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. Both referees caught the major issue in the paper and offered great suggestions for moving forward. In hindsight, submitted the paper too prematurely. 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. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. Chat (0) Conferences. Baltagi desk rejected it in 2 days for being lack of novelty. Very quick response from Larry Katz. Fairly quick acceptance. Poor referee reports. Receive desk rejection in 24 hours, editor read the paper and suggested to top field journal. Poor and unhelpful referee reports, club journal. Only got form letter. The contribution of the paper is not suficient for the EJ. Reject and resubmit. Moffitt desk rejected, suggested a field journal. Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one). Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. A grad student could do better! that ?no? editor very helpful. Insightful and reasonable referee reports. Fast turnaround. Report is in reasonable quality. Got 3 ref reports - 1 RR 2 reject. Really bad experience (Midrigan was the editor). If you don't like my paper then desk reject the first time, and don't ask me to resubmit! One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. Long wait. 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. Very good handling of the process. Fast and fair enough. Two referee reports, one critical, one encouraging. Overall, good experience. One positive report, one negative. Journal always replied to me saying it is delayed and I finally withdrew after 2 years with no response. paper rejected after one round of R&R due to extremely negative attitude of the one referee. Both referees were a bit too negative, but the reports were useful. With editor for 1.5 month. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. useless comments from editor. Took about 2.5-3 months for first response which detailed a lot of work - two R & R decisions, each of which took about 2 months for referees to get back on. Placement Officer: Professor Stefania Garetto, [email protected], (617) 358-5887. The referees and the editor took ridic, Editor: Heckman; high quality reports, two of the reports were helpful and constructive. Useful letter from the editor. They have officially adopted the policy of not giving reasons for desk rejections given the 75% desk rejection rate. But overall very very slow process. Desk rejection (standard email). It took the referees / editor 5 months to look at my revised script to then just accept it without any further comments. Bad experience. Would try again. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. We got RR and referee reports 4 moths after submission, then it took 5 months to acceptance. Very good experience. Referee reports were lenthy and very useful. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. Referee reports are interesting and constructive. Wasted months of work. Technical issues handled by non-experts. Still, I have to contact them again after 9 weeks because they did nothing with my paper. solution? Click here for more information. 10 month without any reaction from the editor. Not for the faint-hearted. Nice experience, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. Very good and useful referee reports. Very slow. It is not clear why the referee does not like the paper but it is clear he does not need 5 months for such a report. Not big enough contribution. Resulted in much better paper. One furstrating assertion by the editor. One excellent and positive report. Two fantastic referee reports within 1.5 months. Overall I feel paper rejected because of third negative review. The reviewer's reports came up 2 months after submission. rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us. Nice comments and feedback from Associate Editor. It is frustrating to get rejected after convincing the referees. Very smooth process. 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. Isnt it written that this journal focuses on mathematical reasoning instead of sticking to conventional setup? But no referee reports were supplied to me. Constructive referee report. Apparently is unaware of large literature in multiple fields to which topic pertains. Editor acted as 4th referee once referees were satisfied. 2 months after first submission of manuscript. We saw no referee report and only had to deal with editor comments/suggestions. Very slow. Pleasantly surprised by the quality of referee report. Post an advertisement. 1 report half page long. Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. Very slow. Fast but shallow. Re-submission took a week to be finally be accepted. Two weeks for R&R. Smooth process, a bit too much work for this journal. Very good experience. They changed their system recently and the new system indicated that my paper had not been submitted so I waited 5 months for nothing. Fantastic journal. Comments were helpful. However, it seems the process is one editor first decide whether to send to referee or not but a second editor makes the final decision (William Kerr)? Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions. They kept the application fee. Waste of time and money. Quick response from referees and editor. Desk reject in a few days. Took a little over a month for the desk reject and no refunds. After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected. Referee reports were of high quality. It is a very demanding R&R and we revise the paper a lot according to the suggestions, but it is worthwhile. Very disappointed at the editor who made a decision based on such a low quality report. Recently Announced. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. "Thank you for your paper. Two solid referee reports. Seems to be a fair process, 13 months for editor to desk reject because the paper has no empirical section, One good report, very constructive, the other one rejecting the paper. (are we a bit paranoiac?). Job Market Paper: Local Polynomial Estimation of Time-Varying Parameters in GMM. Very useful comments from referees. Was rejected today by editor as only 1/2 referee reports submitted. I didn't expect an accept here, but I def did not expect to be rejected on the grounds of such poor review reports. 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) Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help. Will not submit here again. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California (USA) Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. Terrible report. Crappy journal with crappy editor. My paper was transferred after rejected from a higher ranked journal. 2 very good reports and one poor report. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Very quick response. Associate editors are very professional. Good comments. Quick to online first. Extremely efficient. No flyouts yet. Should have read the comments here about how badly run this journal is. Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). All comments seem easy to answer. 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. One absolutely incompetent referee. The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. Comments weren't helpful, but at least they didn't waste my time. Editor from outside of the field (empirical corporate fin) did not think that my paper (ap theory) is interesting. After 10+ years in a research institution, counless submission, countless rejections, and some papers published in highly ranked journal, this was definitely my worst experience ever. The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! Overall, not bad experience.