The status are always the same "under review". Constructive comments and Nice experimence! Decent reports, rejecting for fair reasons. Tough revisions, but very fair. Very efficient process. No meaningful comments. Two reports (half-page each) citing minor issues. Very efficient process, better than expected. Smooth process. One referee waited for 182 days to submit his/her report as there was a time stamp on the report. Waited a year for two low quality reports. Rejected on pretty poor grounds by an associate editor. No input from editor either. Eight months is a long wait though. 2 informed reports + very detailed comments and guidance by the AE. Also a very kind editorial letter. Two useful reports and one garbage report thrashing the paper. Weak editor. Overall good experience. The referee reports were fairly good. Editor claimed that referee is an expert in the field. What takes so long? Desk rejected within 10 days. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! Great experience. Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. One associate editor recommended rejection and no other comments/suggestions, but one referee provided very useful comments and s/he seems to be positive about the paper(I post one row which has the wrong info on journal name, should be JPE rather than QJE). Maybe small sample made it untouchable? The referee made also several nonsensical remarks about the methodology giving a signal that s/he hasnt thoroughly went through the paper. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. I knew I shot too high. This is designed to reduce the overall turnaround time for the journal, especially given the high volume of submissions." Not because of the decision but due the letter content. Worst experience I have ever had. Suggest field journal. a bit slowtwo general positive+one negative reports, and the editor rejected itfeel sad, but not too bad experience Average (low) quality reports. Neither felt that the paper was a good fit for an urban journal. Editor and co-editor are extremely nice and supportive. Young Economist Rankings | IDEAS/RePEc - Research Papers In Economics If you want a fair treatment - stay away from this journal. 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. 1 report, minor issues, rejected. It ended up being published in a higher ranked journal. Desk reject within 1 day. About 14 weeks from submission to referee reject. Not sure I'd call it a full referee report, however, and only receiving one report is strange. Editor followed the referees suggestion, though with his own view on the paper. Rejected for not significant enough contribution. +6 months for a desk rejection without a single comment. Paper eventually got accepted at higher ranked journal (!). R&R, took forever, reports mentioned but not provided, not responsive to emails. Decent referee report, acceptance 3 days after submitting revision. Not submitting again to this journal. It too me the editor 13 months to desk reject. Is "have u told ur mother" am automated script, or truly deranged person? placement@econ.ucla.edu. Very long time to receive the first decision (major revision). Incredible experience: one of the referee report told us that a working paper was published on almost the same subject (and justifies our rejection) but this working paper was published 5 months after our submission ! No indication that the co-editor read the paper. The referees made good points. Had 2 tough but fair r&r rounds with 2 reviewers and 1 with the editor. Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING. Unbelievable! May 2019 - Post-doc, Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at Virginia Tech Carilion, Roanoke, VA. Spring 2020 - Nanjing Audit University, Gulou, Nanjing, China. All reports were useful and very demanding. Andrew Foster took a full month for a desk without a comment. For the steep fee would have been appropriate if editor had written a few sentences about why they rejected. Highly recommended. Overall good experience. In doubt, Spier decided to reject the paper. The first revision took around 5 months. Very professionalthe referee reports were fine but rather tough given the quality of the journal, 3 rounds, all comments addressed, rejected because 1 reviewer did not read the last version. First two reports were "not general interest enough" and didn't have much to say substantively as a result (1-2 pages). A number of emails without reply since then. Search by field of study. In case of desk rejection, they should return the submission fee. Waste of time and money. Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. Referee says R&R, but editor decides to reject outright. Good reports. Editor read the paper and gave helpful feedback. Three high quality referee reports. WD has become a true shitshow. other outlets are suggested. Which.a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject. Six weeks for response. Otherwise, efficient process, decent reports. We saw none. Two good referee reports, useful comments, theory; 2 decent referee reports and 1 suggestive letter from an editor. I am a macroeconomist specialized in economic growth and macro labor. General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,806) Micro Job Rumors (15,245) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,027) China Job Market (103,534) EJM - Econ Job Market Arbitrary decision without sending it to refs by incompetent editor. Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. Cocaine Bear vs Research Workshop: can you tell the difference? way too long for a "standard" rejection. Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. ", Fast response. Extremely poor experience for a journal charging submission fees. Unfortunately the editor decides to reject the paper on the last round because he has concern about the paper. 3 weeks to desk reject. A fairly high quality report, useful, within 24 days. The editor picked a new (hostile) referee in the 2nd round. Editor said all refs must agree for acceptance but only one ref report provided! Short turn around time. 100 USD for such VALUABLE suggestion. I am currently studying the interaction between technological and demographic changes and the labor market. Got accepted after a week. Horrible experience! I waited for seven months, only to receive one superficial referee report. Only 1 report, but a fair assessment of the paper. 23 hours and 30 minutes after submission, desk reject from Shleifer. Bad experience overall, although the reports came quickly. The worst experience I ever had in over 20 years. The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. Very fast and fair process, despite the negative outcome. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. Extremely efficient process with good comments by referees. I don't know what to add. 9 days. took 5 months. Just one referee report. The contribution of the paper as it stands to be insu cient for publication in The Econometrics Journal. Of course we don't like the reports, or editor's comments, but there is some helpful stuff. Revised carefully and resent, then they sent to another editor and another reviewer whose report contradicted the first and was very vague. Very unprofessional. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. good reports, great editor who replies promptly to queries. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. Duration: 2 years. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. 6 weeks to get 3 referee reports. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. Referee was sharp, thoughtful, and thorough. Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. Suggested to submit to RSUE. It seems that the last guy didn't read the paper carefully and I wonder how it could take 4month to write such a poor report. One excellent referee report, and one decent one. Editor misunderstood the findings, complained didn't understand the Y variable (maybe ease up on the word limit then). Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. ", Two reports - one thorough and one probably by a grad student, One associate editor recommended rejection and no other comments/suggestions, but one referee provided very useful comments and s/he seems to be positive about the paper. All the points are addressable so I would've liked an RR but I'm not part of the club so I can't complain. The rejection was fine but took too long for a desk reject. I withdrew the manuscript and will never submit here again. I recommend. Bad experience overall. These rankings consider only the youngest economists registered with RePEc. BTW if one of the referee goes for RR, I would have to wait for a third referee report (lucky me?). Referee comments show that it could be an RR but the editor rejected. I submitted two papers and both took a very long time to get referee comments from and the sets of referee comments read like they were written by undergraduate students. One ok report, one poor. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Helpful editor. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. Rejected by editor. 1 report half page long. one positive, one negative report. Considered waste of time here. Very quick response. I declined the offer to resubmit. Very disappointing experience with the journal and refereeing process. 1 positive and 1 negative report - Editor rejected. Great comments from the referees and editor. Not a good fit! 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. Will never submit to this journal again. Desk reject in two weeks. The low-quality report won out Reject with two solid reports. Editor agreed with them. (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. Very good referees. Only one semi-informative report. Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. A serious fraud: Fake JF and RFS conditional acceptances, "Leftover women" problem hits US dating market, New "Family Ruptures" AER / NBER is rip-off of obscure paper, Schiraldi (LSE) and Seiler (Stanford) false coauthors of AER publication, Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School, Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO). Horrible treatment. The editor decided major revision. One very good report, the other OK. One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. The referee cannot fully understand the model. Editor rejected because paper topic (public finance) is not what tey are currently looking for. Economics Job Market Rumors . 3 Top 5 referees and editor said the paper was a good fit for ReStat, meh Amitabh Chandra rejected in one month with no infomation. desk reject after three months editor claimed they did not publish papers on this topic but they bogh b, actually submitted in 2017; desk rejection after 1 week; short and friendly answer of editor; however inconclusive, editoral. To be fair, some of the editors comments were sharp. Tough but fair ref reports that raise valid questions. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. Accepted after revision within 1 month. Very good experience, the editor (Aizenman) was very fast. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. Why don't black people open carry and call it 2nd amendment rights? Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. One very good and one very weak report. 1 very good referee report, 1 OK, 1 pretty bad (revealing that the referee was clearly a non-economist). Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. I was very grateful despite the rejection. Bad journal. never submit to this journal again. Desk rejected within 7 days. Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. In short, he left us only one option: not to resubmit. 2 months between submission and final decision! Submission fee not refunded. Quite clear they didn't bother to read manuscript. Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). Very good editor recommending a field journal. Helpful reports, overall good experience. Editor agreed. The editor was quick and helpful. National Bureau of Economic Research. Francis Breedon is an efficient editor. Rather uninformative feedback: feeling that it is not suitable for publication and unlikely to be favorably reviewed. All referee reports were gave entirely stylistic comments with no real grounds for rejection. Initial response slow, then extremely quick after R&R. Very good experience. He is the main contact person for employers who have questions about a candidate's vita . Desk reject due to lack of scope of the manuscript, Rejected for a lack of contribution. Weak reports with many assertaions that were simply untrue. Fast review process. 19 Jul 2023. WE got 3 tough and long referee reports. Withdrew article from consideration after 18 months of wait. Revision accepted after one day. very efficient process but experience depends crucially on editor. Excellent and clear communication with editors. Manuscript was withdrawn - editor had assigned referees within 3 months of submission but then these were apparently not forthcoming. No specfic comment on the paper. A good journal, Quick and fair outcome with a nice response from the editor, Good experience with every step completed in a timely fashion. Home | Economics Job Market Rumors Aina (Zurich), Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA), Conte (U Bologna / UAB), Stockler (UAB), Health Economics Labor and Demographic Economics Urban, Rural, Regional, Transportation Economics In, Fan (Stanford), Lepper (Pitt), Mahmood (OSU), Rehbeck (Ohio State AP), Vidart (UConn AP), Liu (Michigan AP), Yoder (Georgia AP), Mathevet (EUI AP), Cox (Yale postdoc), Choi (Princeton), Craig (Yale postdoc), applied microeconomics, econometrics, and/or macroeconomics, Yang (USC) Vidart (UConn AP) Qiu (Penn) Mills (Princeton) Mugnier (CREST), Borusyak (UCL), Ramos (Harvard), Ostriker (MIT), Sharma (MIT), Vitali (UCL), Crews (Chicago), Druckenmiller (RFF), University of California, San Diego (UCSD), Seck (Harvard), Mills (Princeton), Alfonsi (Berkeley ARE), Rivera (Columbia), Idoux (MIT/Wharton AP), Moscona (MIT), Souchier (Stanford), Chen (Stanford GSB), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Vitali (UCL), Ederer (Toulouse), Lanzani (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Miller (Wharton), Vasudevan (Yale SOM), Nimier-David (ENSAE), Pernoud (Stanford), Kwon (HBS), Fleckenstein (Stern), Hampole (Kellogg), Wang (Stanford GSB), Tang (Harvard), Coston (CMU), Singh (MIT), Yong Cai (Northwestern), Yuling Yan (Princeton), Mou (Berkeley), Jahani (Berkeley), Chang (Yale), Moran (Columbia), Uehara (Cornell), Althoff (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Carry (ENSAE), Conlon (Harvard), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Kohlhepp (UCLA), Minni (LSE), Moscona (MIT), Nguyen (MIT), Otero (UC Berkeley), Pernoud (Stanford), Roth (Uni of Cologne), Thereze (Princeton), Vergara (UC Berkeley), Sturm (MIT), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford). Quick desk reject, apparently considers itself a GI journal now (?). He does not read the paper, or he has no expertise. Katia Meggiorin. Receive reports from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. 5 days, paper is too specific for QJE, Helpman suggested another journal. 2 years no reply, then short letter and reject, I would never send there again. forthcoming papers by the Chief editor shoshana. Editor mentioned delay is mainly the result of needing to get a second editorial assessment which suggested this paper's arguments are more likely to find a responsive audience in a different journal. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. Good comments from referee and editor after five months. President, University of Applied Sciences in Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Says model's too complex then suggests an addition which would have tripled the state space. Except when I have coauthored with someone who is at an elite school, I've been desk rejected every time at QJE. Good experience, great turnaround. Otrok rejected within 7 days; considerable comments on the paper, though the three major points are either just wrong or addressed (one of them prominently) in the introduction of the paper. Economics Job Market. Recommended a more specialized journal to try next. The paper was accepted after the first round revision. Ex: CDF was derived to construct the likelihood of a discrete choice model, a reviewer writes the author does not use the derived CDF. That was also a very fast and good experience, though not the outcome I had hoped. Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. So, I "told mother", and she was like "What is Edge-mer? One positive report, one mixed and one negative. Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. Will never try it again. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. Good experience. Can you get a job? Still not a fan of this journal. Good reasons for rejection; comments improved paper for next submission. I expected better from this journal. Desk Reject took 4 months. One good referee report, one referee who had no idea. Desk rejection in 3 days. Negative reaction of referees. Desk Reject in a Week but it did come with two pages of notes and questions that should help the paper. A second round of minor revision was requested. Flores, Jairo. Great experience. Will probably not be using this journal again. 2 shortish referee reports one fairly positive the other fairly negative, editor decided to reject based on lack of originality. Good comments from the reviewers. One ref report with extremely constructive criticisms. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. Long reports with some good comments. After two weeks we got a desk rejection with a very impersonal letter which made us think that the editor did not even read the intro. The associate editor however provided some useful comments which helped us improve the paper. Some reviewers disappeared after the first review, the editors could't even find an alternative, and the comments were not assessed critically by the editors due to an editorial change. The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. Not big enough contribution. not a fair process. Fair reject with detailed reports. Quality suggestions from all three reports & editor. 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. Low quality referee reports. Full of informative/wrong comments. Not general interest enough. 2 Weeks. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. Excellent Experience. Low quality comments from Frank Sloan. The Referee Report was very helpful and quite positive. Post an advertisement. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. Very negative experience. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. 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. Would send here again. Katz very thoughtful and helpful editor letter. Not much to complain about. Very, very disappointed. Worked butt off to respond to them. It took 3 weeks to get a desk reject letter. No comments on the reason for rejection was given. Such a waste of my valuable time. seven weeks to say poor fit when similar and cited papers are published there. Four months for a desk reject! Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. We got RR and referee reports 4 moths after submission, then it took 5 months to acceptance. AFter 3 months of being "under review", I get this email: I regret to say that we are not able to offer publication to your paper. Very efficient process. Editor provided quick and fair comments why the paper is not suitable for the journal. Unanswered letters to editor by the 6th and 12th months after submission, only got reply after getting in touch to editorial office. The referee reports were good. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and less than two months in the second round. Positive feedback from the editor. 2/3 ref reports were detailed and useful. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Good experience. Very good experience! Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. (It doesn't seem like a club journal. Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that! International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. Very good journal, with reactive editorial assistant (Sabah Cavalo), and very good and constructive comments. Fairly helpful referee report. Fast and fair. Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper. About 10 weeks from submission to referee reject. Desk rejected within a week, no fee refunds. avoid. Didn't let it go, Editor told him to "#"# off and published the paper anyway. Less than two months for very minor revision request. "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". Nice words from the editor. Editor sent it to peer review in one day. Good report from reviewers. The comment by the editor in charge was helpful. Standard comments, paper's topic just not good enough. Seems safe to ignore the submission guideline: "In tables, please report standard errors in parentheses but do not use *s to report significance levels.". But overall very very slow process. Oh well, on to the next journal. Took a long time for first response which suggested feasible changes and asked for a revised submission. 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. I will never submit there again, Excellent and constructive reports. Robert J. Barro desk rejected the paper in less than 24 hours. Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work.". All suggest major revision and change of approach. 2 positive. Fast editors. Said the contribution was too small, which I accept. Apparently is unaware of large literature in multiple fields to which topic pertains. Comical journal. Editor accepted it. Baltagi desk rejected it in 2 days for being lack of novelty. recommend ?that? Poorly managed journal. Fast process. Bad experience with both the referee reports and the editor, Single RR, Editor said couldn't find a second reviewer. Editor accepted the paper after we made some modifications recommended by the referee. Editor sat on completed reports for 2 months to give a two sentence rejection response. Did not receive a rejection letter from the co-editor. 2 (ridiculous) referee reports, poor handling by the editor. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. Would try again in the future. Two referees in the first round, good comments. Claudia Rae Sahm (ne Foster) is an American economist, leading the Macroeconomic Research initiative of the Jain Family Institute. Resubmitted within the same day. Less than two weeks from submission to editorial decision. Comments were helpful. Editor (Reis) worked hard on paper to make it better. Clear suggestions with R&R decision from Hillary Hoynes. 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. Editor recommended field journal submission. 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. Fast but shallow. One report was very useful and of very good quality, the other was of good quality but not very useful. One was a paragraph long and basically did a lit review. Desk rejection within two weeks. did not refund the submission fee. This Rumors site allows only a maximum of 12 months from submission to decision. Process seemed very fair. 2 days from submission to desk rejection. Referee one was inexpert in the field, and suggested we cite mostly irrelevant papers published by the handling editor. Complete waste of time!! I will try in the future. Would submit again. Kathryn spier, the editor, was even more clueless and unable to see that we were right and s(he) was wrong. 11 months for a rejection. Good experience overall, took more than 1 year to get one referee report. Comments very helpful, editors took time to read the paper and were engaged throughout the process.