Overall I think this journal should get a more diverse editorial board. Nothing that could not be fixed in 2 days, still reject. Thought already in literature. Got a slow desk rejection from LB telling me/us to cite someone I cited in the intro. 10 days for desk reject. Sent a specialized financial accounting paper. Good comments, made the paper better. Katz very thoughtful and helpful editor letter. The other reviewer raised some minor issues. The paragraph/comment not constructive. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. Good reports. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy, Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript. Annoyed because all of the concerns were addressed and yet she could not be bothered to re-read the paper. Was advised to submit to a field journal, Good reports, efficient process, we just didn't meet Katz's "general interest" standard, Surprised didn't get a desk reject. A colleague from another school submitted there and also had to wait a long time for very poor quality referee reports. San Jose, CA. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. Sum up: Fast but not cool, Editor. This post is a continuous work in . my paper was rejected but great comments on how this paper can be improved are made. Very disappointing to have no word on a paper that got R&R with minor revisions in a similar ranked journal half a year later, Desk rejection after three months, editor apologized for delay, Desk accepted, sent to R&R for less than a month. Overall, good experience. Two reports of middling quality. Two referee reports. 2 referees clearly read the paper and made some good and insightful comments. First round of referee reports obtained in another 2 months. Worst experience ever. Candidate in Management. These rankings consider only the youngest economists registered with RePEc. JFM is bad! Still got rejected. Job Market. Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. Obviously an inevitably subjective decision, but given this, the handling was very fair. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. One positive and one negative. Amit Khandelwal desk rejected a RCT health paper in 2 days with no specific comment..no refund of submission fee, I do not belong to their club, Very quick turnaround (~4 days), encouraging response suggesting field journals. The final version of the proof was more elegant as a result, I am very appreciative of the reviewers and the editor. Fair enough. 1 good report and 1 not so good. Not of broad interest. Instead, they should've looked at B." Good experience in general, the editor recommended a field journal. Overall an excellent experience. One report was very poor and full of bsh*t while the other was good. Referee seemed have read just the abstract. One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. Will never submit here again. Not sure what the editor(s) are doing at this journal but whatever it is, it is not quality overseeing and editing of papers. 10 months is too long to get back. Disappointing outcome, but OK overall experience. Theory in one field sent to AE in another field doing empirics. 9 months to one ref report which was not helpful. 6 weeks to get 3 referee reports. The other report was *atrocious*. Excellent process. Passed the desk (Turner) in ten days. Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. Quick and well handled by the editor. 3 rounds then rejected by editor, paper was improved by addressing reviewers' comments, eventually accepted at RFS, Cam Harvey gave useless report; obvious outgoing editor is obvious. 3 detailed reports, and a summary from Hendren explaining the rejection. Other, did not read the paper carefully yet rejected. It seems like one of the reviewers do not even read my paper.The suggestions are nonsense. 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. I declined the offer to resubmit. One fairly high-quality report, one not-so good. Got accepted after a week. One useful report, the other poor. A bit slow but overall a good experience. Until the 1970s, junior economics hiring was largely by word of mouth. I would submit again or recommend this outlet! One decent, the other sloppy. That mean 5 people read my paper? Very efficient process, better than expected. Reports were semi thorough and okay, appreciated the fairly quick response, The referees raised concerns that we were not able to see before, and they were fair. cooperative? The other was low quality and made factually incorrect statements that seemed to influence the associate editor's assessment of the manuscript. The peer review process was fast. Terribly run journal and I wouldn't advise anyone to submit there. Boston University Department of Economics. Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Fair and quick process. The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. Comments are helpful. Funny thing is Editor endorsed reviewer's response. Very pleasant process. A year after submission without result? One highly vauable report; one okay-ish, one less useful. 2 constructive reports that improve the paper after 2 months. Finally, I have now wothdrawn my paper. 1 serious person pushing his method. Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California (USA) Couple of comments why the paper does not fit (relatively reasonable). Poor reports. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. Strongly recommend submitting there. very efficient process and useful reports from editor and referess. Reason: topic/results too narrow with respect to broad audience. 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. Terrible referees. Turns out that means he's following the Schwert model: don't read the paper, regurgitate the reviewer's comments in the decision letter. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). The contribution of the paper is not enough for EL! An Associate Editor clearly read the paper. Referees and editor reports were incredibly useful, Shitty ref report. Ok, experience if it wouldnt be for the 11 months. One week desk rejection with form letter. Nice experience!!! Both suggested rejection. Good reviews by the referee and the AE. New editor apologized for the delay and handled the rejection quickly. No reports provided, but editor made brief helpful comments. He gave thoughtful comments about how to better target elsewhere. Not submitting again to this journal. Split reports but very clear advice from editor. One referee reports is only 2 short paragraphs long and completely wrong. useless reports. Zero constructive comments! Contacting the editor twice did not result in speeding up the process (but we received at least a reply). fast process; only one report who was mainly referencing a single paper (SSRN, not published, single author); no useful feedback, disappointing experience. Focus of decision appeared to be on the institutional context of the paper rather than considering the economics. The editor does not respond to emails. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. Advisor: Prof. Caterina Calsamiglia. Very nice experience! Now? Although I withdrew my article, editor sent me a rejection letter in a very rude manner. My paper was in "submitted" status for almost 5 months when made a query. Then again, it only took a couple of weeks to get the rejection. Job Market Paper: Local Polynomial Estimation of Time-Varying Parameters in GMM. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. Rejected by editor. It has had it uses as a source of gossip but it accumulated the worst of any group of mostly 20 something American men. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. The paper was accepted few days after the revised version has been submitted. great reviews and useful comments for ref, only 1 referee report 3 sentences long by reviewer who did not read the paper, Good reports but very slow to get a rejection. Two weak reports. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. Suggested to send to another journal! Can you get a job? One excellent and positive report. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Very unprofessional. Got accepted after 2nd round. 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful). No further comment from the editor. And once that was done, he wanted us to rewrite the article. Horrible experience. I am an assistant professor at Universit de Montral. Rejected within one day. The first referee points out at the weaknesses of the paper and proposes reasonable solutions. Helpful reports and suggestions by the editor. Editor also read the paper and took the call - explained that the paper was better suited at a good field journal given referee assessments of contribution to literature. One good report (weak r&r). The Editor was quite polite. The whole process lasts less than a year from submission to acceptance. Graduate Advisors. Great experience. very fast response and useful comments from a referee. Giles is a great editor. Garbage journal, not a real journal, avoid. Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. econjobrumors.com Top Marketing Channels. Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it. Mark Ramseyer. The editor had read the paper and provided guidance. Three tough rounds which made the paper better. Serrano handled the manuscript. 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. One excellent and detailed (5pages) referee report which helped a lot in revising the paper to a much higher level. referee and AE comments, OK at best. Just one very low quality report. 3 polite reports say it is interesting but too simple for aer. Referee didn't buy identification strategy. Bad experience. Though reports with constructive comments, Tough and fair refereeing. Followed up on them, sent it to another journal, and got accepted very quickly. No feedback at all. So they had no idea about basic econometrics. This journal still has the word economics in its tile, please stop asking clueless marketing types to referee! Name Department Contact Subfield .
Recent Deaths In Bloomsburg, Pa, Tudor Crime And Punishment Year 5, Dolly Parton's Home Sevierville Tn, Wright County Sheriff Accident Report, Articles E