His own comments were not based on the reports. I waited fora long time only to be rejected with a response NOT A GOOD FIT. Probably the editor took a look at my zip code, and told the AE that "this should be quick". Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. The editor (Midrigan) collects three reports within 75 days. The initial resposen took too long (almost 4 moth to be sent our to referees). Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. The top traffic source to econjobrumors.com is Direct traffic, driving 56.39% of desktop visits last month, and Organic Search is the 2nd with 42.93% of traffic. You won't get in unless you are in the 'cabal'. Apart from long waiting time (editor part of the old guard at JPE), positive experience. ref asks more robustness check. !. We believe this policy serves contributors who are saved months of unnecessary delays. Next time, I will come back with a vip or friend of the editorial team to have positive a priori. Desk rejected in 10 days because the editor wasn't a fan of the data. Editor rejected within less than 10 days. Very satisfied with the experience. Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. Useful letter from the editor. 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. Reports were okay but in the end not that helpful. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. Economics Job Market Rumors . Your paper is not fit for public choice try with public economics. A long wait but not very helpful comments. Fast and fair. Good experience. Referee comments show that it could be an RR but the editor rejected. 2.5 months to desk reject. Desk reject after 2 months. The editor rejected based on flimsy reasons. Very polite desk rejection. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!! Editor provided a letter with comments. Easy Process. About 10 weeks from submission to referee reject. This journal is a joke. 6 months and no feedback from the journal whtsoever. Pleasant experience. Very efficient. Fast and clean. Great judgment. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. I'd submit there again in the future. Very helpful referee report. So-so report. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. 1 good report and 2 of low quality probably written by grad students. Two reports that are quite detailed. 2 was more critical. Xavier Vives rejected the paper after 4 rounds and 2 years based on the recommendation of an incompetent referee who couldn't understand the paper and kept making bogus claims about errors in the analysis or interpretation in every round. Accepted after two rounds. great experience. Editor is a insecure joke. After the second round R&R, I only had to deal with the long reviewer. Only one report. Polite letter from Bekaert. Terrible single line report from editor (after 16 months of waiting). Both reports very helpful, AE comments showed that he did not understand the paper. Nice words from the editor. 1 week. He clearly outlined the major flaws and decided to desk-reject it. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. Fair editor. Very weak reports. One of the papers has over 3000 citations. Very poor handling by editor. Theory in one field sent to AE in another field doing empirics. Desk reject after one month, no comments just standard letter, Quick rejection (12 days), with no comments on the paper, Rodrik rejected 10 days after submission, advised a field journal. At least it was fast I guess. It too me the editor 13 months to desk reject. Two referees, two weak R&Rs, editor rejects despite the recommendations of referees. After 3 weeks this would have been acceptable. The other referee has no idea what I am doing. The referee's main criticism was like "they argued that A is the main point, which is weak. Overall great experience. Comments were meant for another paper. Invites for 2nd round zoom interviews sent today. Desk reject in 1 week. Very constructive comments in the 1st round, quicking converging in the 2nd round. Low quality comments from Frank Sloan. Great comments from the referees and editor. The editor is responsive. If you don't have that - expect to be desk rejected. One was good and one was particularly bad with a lot of non-english expressions. Checked status online after a month to see the outcome. After resubmission, I was informed that the paper would be sent to another editor (Prof. Mallick). Third round (acceptance) took 2 weeks. I will never submit there again, Excellent and constructive reports. Rejected after revision, very good comments in initial round. Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. Seemed like a very long time to only receive one referee report. After two rounds all the referee agreed to publish the paper. I published my article in a very decent journal later. Good comments from 2 referees, the other did not appear to have read the paper well. Referee reject after more than a year. 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. Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. 5 days. things slowed down because of covid. One year since submission, no replies to my queries shitty journal. Kind and informed letter from editor. I withdraw my submission after 15 months of submission and no answer from the editor. Editor (Rogerson) makes some encouraging comments but cannot hide the fact that the referees were not really that enthusiastic about the paper, even if they couldn't find much to criticize. Seems largely like the referee just didn't like it and the editor wanted there to be more significant results (publication bias at its best). That's right. 20 Feb 2023. Quick, very good feedback. It's quick, but the reports are really bad and unhelpful. Job Market Candidates. JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending). Shleifer was the editor. In any case, the paper is not a good match for the JIE, both because it is highly technical and (more importantly) because it is more of a trade theory paper than an IO paper. Desk reject after 27 days by Kurt Mitman. Contact: hyejin -dot- park -at . Good first round reports, took a while to respond to all the comments. He sends you an email that he carefully read the paper and then you follow up a day after asking him about a clarification and his response was that he did not remember. The equation to be estimated is not well explained and basic econometric issues (e.g., the problems related to the inclusion of lagged dependent variables) are not discussed. May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. Editing is a service and it is not mandatory. Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. Revisions done in another two months and sent back to referees. Terribly disappointing experience. Referee 1 happy with resubmission (no further comments), referee 2 suggested rejection or major rewriting. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement. Two straightforward R&R recommendations from referees. Overall an excellent experience. In May 2016 the editor promised a decision within a days. Thanks Amy! Fast desk reject (Ciccone), after few days. Fair and quick process. The editor and referee claimed the results were nice but hardly adoptable to other more general problems. they suggested a more spezialized on topic journal. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. Horrible. Editor suggested that paper was better suited for JDE (LOL). Some useful comments, most misreads and poor understanding of model. Surprisingly, she had one-page long useful comments, which helped improve the paper. Submitted to conference edition. Great experience. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. Three poor reports. Bad experience overall, although the reports came quickly. They are also very slow! other outlets are suggested. Very good reports and editor was clear about what were most important points to improve in the revision. I knew I shot too high. Very helpful comments and suggestions from three reviewers and editor (Angeletos). Desk rejected in 1 week. a positive experience, all in all. 1 good report and 1 not so good. He made the most stupid argument to reject the paper. Editor rejected because paper topic (public finance) is not what tey are currently looking for. The bar is high for Exp Econ. Weak editor. I felt as if 65$ has evaporated from my pocket. The editor-in-chief writes, "Although the question you address and your results are interesting, in my view the paper is a poor fit for GEB's readership..". Research Interests : Digital Platforms & Society, Regulatory Uncertainty on Digital Platforms. Excellent experience. One very good and helpful report. Fantastic experience (accepted first round), Directly accepted within one month. referee and AE comments, OK at best. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. One extremely thorough and helpful report, one shorter but still raising valid points. One paragraph that dismissed four years of work. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. A drawback is that it takes time. 16 hour turnaround with nice letter of thoughtful comments suggesting more specialized journal. Ultimately fair. Quite upsetting. Avoid Scott Adams. We asked to see the reports but the editor did not send them. Then the referee gave their answer in 2 weeks. Stay away! Very good referee and associate editor report. Worst experience of my life. 3 polite reports say it is interesting but too simple for aer. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. Horrible experience. AVOID it. This journal is completely a piece of junk. Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). Very good referee reports. The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress. This decision is not in any sense a negative comment on the quality of the paper. Recommended field journals Clueless editor thinks results are of narrow interest. Coming off of a failed R&R at a higher ranked journal. Disappointed with the result, but the experience was okay. Extremely poor experience for a journal charging submission fees. Not easy - but straightforward. Editor and co-editor are extremely nice and supportive. 2nd round interview requests recently sent out which will result in second round of flyouts), Ederer (Toulouse), Beyhum (CREST/ENSAI), Wiseman (Berkeley), Zillessen (Oxford), Seibel (Zurich), De Vera (CEMFI), Laffitte (ULB), Leibniz-Zentrum fr Europische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH Mannheim, Lin William Cong @Cornell sexual harassment, Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Clare Balboni (MIT) Yong Cai (Northwestern), Joel Flynn (MIT), Benny Kleinman (Princeton), Joan Martinez (UC Berkeley), Anh Nguyen (MIT), Agathe Pernoud (Stanford), Roman Rivera (Columbia), Michael Rubens (UCLA), Regina Seibel (Zurich), Natalia Serna (Wisconsin), Christiane Szerman (Princeton), Milena Wittwer (Boston), Hannah Zillessen (Oxford), Althoff (Princeton), Balboni (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Szerman (Princeton), Serna (Wisconsin), Luxembourg Institue of Socio-Economic Research, Assistant Professor in Computational Social Science, Eisfeld (Toulouse), Tiew (Harvard), Woo (Rochester), Sharma (NDS), Sullivan (Yale), Ramos (Harvard), Majewska (Toulouse), Ebrahimi (UBC), Lesellier (Toulouse), Camara (Northwestern), Alba (Toronto), Conlon (Harvard), Bernhardt (Harvard), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), National University of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Aina(Zurich) Ba (UPenn) Bernhardt (Harvard) Cai (Northwestern) Carry(CREST) Chang (Yale) Flynn(MIT) Geddes (Northwestern) Moszkowski (Harvard) Nguyen(MIT) Pernoud(Stanford) Puri(MIT) Rivera(Columbia) Saxena (Harvard) Schuh(Stanford) Souchier(Stanford) Sung (Columbia) Tiew (Harvard) Vitali(UCL) Wiseman (Berkeley), Wong (Columbia), Teng (LUISS), Dimitri Pugachev (INSEAD), Andrey Kurbatov (INSEAD), Felix Wilke (SSE), Uettwiller (Imperial), Sam Piotrowski (Connecticut), Chuck Fang (Wharton), Thomas Grunthaler (Munster), Celine Fei (UNC), Denis Monakov (UCLA), Weiting Hu (Washignton-St. Louis), Valentin Schubert (SSE), Kurbatov, Wilke - declined, Schubert - declined, Piotrowski, Pugachev, Grunthaler - declined, Monakov, Piotrowski (Connecticut), Pugachev (INSEAD), Monakov (UCLA), Kurbatov (INSEAD), Nguyen (MIT), Flynn (MIT), Singh (MIT), Sullivan (Yale), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Sharma (MIT), Qiu (UPenn), Lanzani (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Vergara (UC Berkeley), Wiseman (UC Berkeley), Kroft (Toronto, AP) Kaur (Berkeley AP) Deshpande (Chicago AP) Ryan (Yale AP), Minni (LSE), Otero (UC Berkeley), Pernoud (Stanford), Crews (Chicago), Barone (UCLA), Mills (Princenton), Cai (NW), Jou (UCLA), Rittenhouse (UCSD) Mugnier (CREST) Acquatella (Harvard) Rivera (Columbia) D'Adamo (UCL) Zahra Diop (Oxford), Barone (UCLA), Mills (Princeton), Pellegrina (NYUAD AP), Mugnier (CREST), Beyhum (CREST AP), Deopa (AMSE), Kuang (Cornell), Gordon (Yale), Wang (EUI), Benmir (LSE & Paris Dauphine), Dahis (PUC-Rio AP), Lieber (Chicago), Tebbe (IIES), Ospital (UCLA), DAdamo (UCL), Peking University, Guanghua School of Management, Shen (UCLA), Qiu (Penn), Yang (Princeton), Assistant Professor in Environmental and Resource Economics, Flynn (MIT), Chen (Stanford GSB), Bleemer (Yale), Singh (MIT), Lanzani (MIT), Nguyen (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Sandomirsiy (Caltech), Wang (Stanford GSB), Carry (CREST), Conlon (Harvard), Vergara (Berkeley), Moscona (MIT), Souchier (Stanford), Bleemer (Yale), Carry (CREST), Chen (Stanford GSB), Seck (Harvard), Singh (MIT), Bernhard Dalheimer (Trade & Macroeconomics); Laura Montenovo (State & Local Finance); Guy Tchuente (Quantitative Methods in Spatial Analysis), Hannon (Cambridge), Austin (Oxford Said), Altmann (Oxford), Wangner (TSE), Rudov (Princeton), Uettwiller (Imperial), Leroutier (SSE), de Sousa (UC3M), Pieroni (UAB), Pugachev (INSEAD), Ashtari (UCL), Kim (UCSD), Casella (UPenn), Raja (LSE), Lieber (Chicago), Yang (Duke); see https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sef/events/seminars/, Assistant Professor of Economic Analysis and Policy, Moszkowski (Harvard), Wheeler (Berkeley), Cui (Wharton), Kytomaa (University of Texas at Austin), Sullivan (Yale), Seibel (Zurich), Fleitas (Leuven), Barnes (Berkeley), Lehr (Boston University) https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/AcademicAreas/Seminars, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Wiseman (UC Berkeley), Ferey (LMU), Morazzoni (UPF), Acquatella (Harvard/BU), Diop (Oxford), Eisfeld (TSE), Khalifa (AMSE), Gauthier (CREST), Bodere (NYU), Decker (Zurich), Wang (EUI), Wangner (TSE), Garg (Columbia), Miglino (UCL), Gordon (Yale), Michael Gilraine (NYU), Victor Aguiar (Western), International, public, labor, IO, development, Prasanthi Ramakrishnan (WUSTL), 02/15/2023, Delgado-Vega (UC3M), Castillo Quintana (NYU), Bergeron (USC AP), Slough (NYU, AP), Seck (Harvard), Teso (Northwestern, AP), Bernhardt (Harvard), No offer has been made as of March 3rd, your information is wrong, Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Pauline Carry (CREST), Benny Kleinman (Princeton), Kwok-Hao Lee (Princeton), Jacob Moscona (Harvard/MIT), Sagar Saxena (Harvard), Puri (MIT), Conlon (Harvard), Kleinman (Princeton), Bilal (Harvard AP), Seck (Harvard), Nguyen (MIT), Moscona (MIT), Crews (UChicago), Kleinman (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Moscona (MIT), Grindaker (BI Oslo), Terracciano (SFI), Huebner (UCLA), Taburet (LSE), Azzalini (IIES), Chen (SFI), Morazzoni (UPF), Gopalakrishna (EPFL), Charles (USC Marshall), Monteiro (Kellogg), ; see https://tinyurl.com/4rktwnf6, Minni (LSE), Guige (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Merilainen (ITAM), Carry (CREST), Khalifa (AMSE), Seibel (Zurich), Heath Milsom (Oxford), Carry (CREST); Wiseman (Berkeley); Casella (UPenn); Wu (Rochester); Silliman (Harvard); Morazzoni (UPF); Khalifa (AMSE); Babalievsky (Minnesota); Jha (UBC); Qiu (UPenn). The editor likes the idea, but things the method is not new, so recommended to a field journal. instantaneous rejection, however, without any comments, 5 Weeks for a desk reject without comments. Rejected a letter with one referee report but overall experience was good: about 6 weeks, comments sensible will try to implement. The referee reports were also awful. One ok report, one poor. The editor does not respond to emails. One of the best run journals in macro. 1: 1: We have moved! Co-editor and one referee attacked the paper for something that the paper already explicitly adresses. Received desk rejection from one of the editors quoting results completely unrelated to my paper. 1 months for desk reject. Overall good experience. However, I had issues with production, they uploaded the wrong version of my paper etc, and it looked like it wasn't even copy edited. Long and bad reviewing process. Finished revision in 1 month and once resubmitted took them 2 weeks to accept. Definitely recommend submitting to the journal. We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. Good ref reports. Editor not helpful at all. It was quick. Almost one year later from submission, have no answer about my paper. Rejected for arbitrary reasons. R&R only one round; after submitting the revised version, only waited for six days until final acceptance. Absolutely disappointed by extremely poor response from the editor (Horioka). But we are still hopeful. Under one month for one very brief report saying not good enough for the journal and a completely indecipherable AE report. Dual submission to a conference, the submission fee is quite high. Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. Delays related to second reviewer. Great experience - referee reports really helped improve the paper. Desk rejected in 6 days with no explanation. Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. It took them 13 months to tell us that the article was better suitable for a different journal, Generic Desk Reject - Fortunately they only took 2 days. Can you get a job? Editor realized the mistake and suggested to resubmit after implementing additional revisions (another 2+ months of work). After "awaiting referee selection" for 4 months, I sent a query and got one referee report. A bit long but very helpful referee report. Overall experience is horrible. Decent referee reports. Article was rejected but the comments were generally helpful and thoughtful. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. Reports have very clear constructive instructions and fast response. It seems that the referee did not read the paper just pinpointed assumptions he did not like to reject. the revision requirements seem achievable. Good experience with helpful AE and reviewer. Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small). Gave a quick explanation and said they did a thorough read of the paper. Awful experience. Quite clear they didn't bother to read manuscript. According to him one referee is in favor but the other is not. Good reviews by the referee and the AE. Not helpful in any way. Co-editor felt nothing "wrong" with paper but does not made enough of a contribution to warrant publication. One (very) useful report and one useless, 5 months from submission to acceptance, Desk reject in an hour. Two excellent referee reports. Fast turnaround. One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. The shitty one referred to multiple papers in very low ranked journals authored by the same set of authors. Ph.D. Referees asked for reasonable stuff. One reviewer is helpful, another needs to retake econometrics course. And the whole process took us 8 months. Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. Weird decision as the paper was not far from being accepted at a better journal. Three rounds. No response for seven and a half months. Very poor referee reports. Reviewers likely not in my area; rather superficial comments. Quickly accepted after the revisions were completed. No BS, great experience! the website was hackedthe report was good, and the associate editor is very nice. The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. Had to beg to get a useless ref report. DE claims to have too large acceptance rate. Very kind letter from the editor. New . And I've recently reviewed a closely related paper for the EER that got a revise-and-resubmit, so you'd think the topic must be interesting enough. EER to toilet, the editors are clueless. Somehow it took a whole year for the referees to write short and horribly useless reports which show they did not even bother to read the introduction. Managing the academic job market. Low quality referee reports. Two very good reports, one probably written by the editor. Disappointed. Went on to publish in a better journal. Sent email to the corresponding editor after 6 months review, but no response. 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. Useless experience. Journal of International Money and Finance. I am happy with the outcome. Useless reports. Desk reject in two weeks after submitting a paper. Currently under R&R at a journal with the same ranking. Very quick. The editor VanHoose made some good comments though. Seems like a sound reason. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. Single ref report had three very minor questions. The secondary market "Scramble". Another 2 months and a second round of very minor revisions. Fair process. Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help. Good referee report and very efficient editor. He saw we addressed the points, and accepted the paper himself without going back to reviewers although comments were substantial. Horrible experience. The paper was accepted after the first round revision. Waited a year for two low quality reports. Could have been more lucky with referees, but at least it was very efficient. the editor was helpful and nice though. 2 months for a generic desk rejection with no comment whatsoever.. but of course I am not in the club. Second report little use. 3 week desk reject. Although my manuscript wa based on stochastic processes, editor rejected it since they were not expert in applied econometrics. A bit slow, but kindly acknowledged by the editor. One detailed report. Very inefficient handling of the work. Two referee reports, one critical, one encouraging. Very good referee report. First two reports were "not general interest enough" and didn't have much to say substantively as a result (1-2 pages). There is no option to choose 'Referees Accepted' but 'Editor Rejected'. Editor rejected based on own concerns. Overall good experience. Both referees suggested papers to be cited in the literature review, which seem like their own papers. Thought already in literature. Had wait for the first response awfully long. AE recommended another journal. No comments about the paper itself. Despite the rejection, a very fair process with constructive comments and a fast response. It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! The editor agrees with the latter statement but adds "unless it's great. Rejected based on 1 helpful referee report. Very good reports, very effective handling of the editor. My paper was much of empirical. Still, refreshing for honesty. Contribution too small. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. Mark Watson was the editor. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, Ore. Nearly 600 will lose their jobs. Tough reports that required a lot of work but ultimately improved the paper significantly. Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject. Editor said he appreciated the previous paper but seemed to reject this one (which is probably better) since it fits in with a similar literature. 3 months for a summary reject by the editor. Submitted more than 2 months, still shown the status as "under ADM", 5 months first RR, 5 months second RR, 2 weeks final acceptance. Clearly a club journal. Referee report transformed the paper significantly. The editor did point out a couple of interesting things. At least the process was fast. Very good editor recommending a field journal. Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Extremely fast and with 2 high quality RRs. Skip Navigation. 6 months after that paper online. Editor was fair, his decision was understandble, but 6 months is clearly too long. Bugaga! One good quality report suggesting minor revisions after 1 month. Horner is a disaster! They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. The other was much more careful. They took the paper seriously. Submitted a taxation paper that was outside of their comfort zone. Quick desk reject with a few comments from the editor. (As we've seen, courtesy of Raj Chetty and Diamond/Mirrlees, sometimes they split your paper and accept.). We did. The ME provided helpful comments on top of the two reviewers'. No reports provided, but editor made brief helpful comments. In the first three, the referees took 3 months and tehn 9 months to take care of comments. Waste of time. Two reports, both harsh and recommended reject. ", Editor had serious problems in getting referee reports although on this topic there should have been at least 20 potential referees. That sounds fair to me. Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. WBER changes editor and the new editor (Pavcnik) reject the paper. 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. 5 months, disappointing experience. totally useless editor. The whole process was fast and streamlined. The peer review process was fast. 19. Maybe the paper did not merit publication in JMCB but that referee report was really ridiculous. My worst experience ever. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. Fast decision after resubmit.