Got rejection after 4 months. Desk rejected in a week. Editor is a little slow. Letters from the Editor was nice. Turnaround times are reasonable though. Desk reject after 2 months. useless report from "expert" regurgitating my explicitly stated caveats, B.E. One decent and one sloppy report, 1 good report, 1 bad one, decent turnaround time. The editor decided major revision. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. The literature review was complete! 6 months was a lot to wait for one good report though Good feedback. Terrible experience - slow and unjustified decision. But very quick process after contacting editorial office. Acceted as is; not a single change requested. Very Fast. Editorial process was efficient and fair. Paper: "Regulating the Sharing Economy: A Study of Unlawful Providers". Awful experience! No indication that the paper was read. He, however, had the balls to apologize for the delay. Reasonable. The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. He suggested a more suitable outlet. Mostly generic comments. No applied letter should take 9 months to referee and the fact that editor did not solicit additional reports or nag the referee shows they don't care. Overall- great experience. Empirical results didn't match their political priors so recommended rejection. half a page report. Unanswered letters to editor by the 6th and 12th months after submission, only got reply after getting in touch to editorial office. 1 very good referee reports, 1 mediocre, editor was nice. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. The paper was a very good fit though. That mean 5 people read my paper? Editor followed the referees suggestion, though with his own view on the paper. One very good review, two quite missed points. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. No refund. Overall experience is horrible. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. Positive feedback from the editor. The three reviewers really went through the proof, I was a little impressed by their comments. 2.5 months to desk reject. Job Market Candidates. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. Other referee hadn't read the paper at all. The editor decided to reject, I am not in the club. Kicker: next day got an email to renew my CEA membership to be able to keep submitting to CJE! $65 down the drain! Note that some areas need filling in with actual pages. bad experience close call, got rejected Change of editor in charge during the process. Second referee made some useful suggestions. It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. Absolutely idiotic low-quality comments. Generally not 5-star experience but worth submitting there if your paper is relevant. Editor misunderstood the findings, complained didn't understand the Y variable (maybe ease up on the word limit then). Fit justification. Editor mentioned additional points and suggested a field journal as an alternative. There were 2 rounds of revision after which the reviewers validated the manuscript. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Very efficient process. Very helpful referee report. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. Went on to publish in a better journal. 5 days. decent referee reports, overall good experience. Editor desk rejected after a couple of weeks due to lack of fit. The editor was Christian Pop-Eliches. Expected a bit better. Both referees are bad at econometrics. I regret to inform you that we do not consider this work to be of sufficient interest to our readership to warrant publication. Would submit again. a? Good quality reports for a low-ranked journal, though. Two reviewers recommended rejection. The process was very fast. It's going to be most accurate for economics, political science, public policy & other professional schools. Provided very useful comments. Comments were not really helpful. The other one was less so. High quality, detailed referee reports, which substantially improved the paper. Desk rejected in 10 days. 1 good report and 2 of low quality probably written by grad students. Will never submit there again. E Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; F3 International Finance; F4 Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance; Banco de la Republica, the Colombian central bank, is interested in hiring a new or experienced Ph.D. economists to work as a researcher/economist.. They are also very slow! Decent reports. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee. Some not so fair. Poor / no justification for decision. DE claims to have too large acceptance rate. All three schools are exceptional but UChicago is particularly strong in Econ as well as other core subjects such as polisci and philosophy. Two referee reports, one engaged and constructive, the other written in incredibly poor English that took issue with some phrases I used. It ended up being published in a higher ranked journal. less than 2 weeks, recommended field journal. the? editing team is real class act. Not a particularly good experience, constructive reports, editor had read the paper and gave additional comments, One bad/objectively false report, one useful report. One very good report, the other OK. We made almost all of the changes required by the referees and the editor accepted it. Will definitely send again. Terrible referee report referee made contradictory statements and econometric mistakes in report. Horrible associate editor, Arkolakis, rejected based on his personal views. The Referee Report was very helpful and quite positive. Arizona School Board rejects hiring teachers with Christian values: What is the best country currently to live in? Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. Desk Reject in one week for lack of contribution. Rejected within 24hrs by Katz. His own comments were not based on the reports. Editor (Reis) worked hard on paper to make it better. Never again. useless reports referees didn't seem to read the paper and appeared not to be experts .. Desk-rejected in 7 days: "the paper lacks sufficient political economy content to be appropriate". Detailed reports, 2 negative, 1 positive; nice letter from co-editor. You have to earn it! Second was uninformative. Amazing. Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). Not worth the time wasted. 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. Outrageously poor process. Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! Recommend field journals, Useful letter from the editor Dirk Krueger (aprox. It took 4 months to get the reviews, but the reviews were excellent. Very constructive suggestions. That was disappointing. Then took about 14 months to be come out in print. Got the refund soon after request. Rather weird outcome but quite quick for a journal of its reputation. Unacceptable waiting time. Editor sends paper just to his/her peers with predefined ideas. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending). Contact Us 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 617-868-3900 info@nber.org webaccessibility@nber.org. Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. One positive one negative. Referee reports were quite helpful in refining the paper. One referee report excellent. A reviewer gave some thoughtful comments. The co-editor gave very specific, though difficult requests for the revision. as stated ("within 24 hours") we got an editorial reject claiming the lack of interest for a broad audience. Worst referee report ever. Says model's too complex then suggests an addition which would have tripled the state space. A lot to revise, but editor gave only 2 months. Good experience. Desk rejected in 6 days with no explanation. Referee reject after more than a year. The other was much more careful. I got two very different referee reports, one was very critical but absolutely low quality. 2 rounds (1 major R and 1 minor R), one report each time, very fast acceptance after minor R round (less than a month), Fast and to the point reports with reasonable requests for r&r. Comical journal. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. it.?I? Horrible experience. Friendly email from editor, interesting reports from referees. Shockingly low quality reports that were nearly identical. Both referees were concerned about identification, but did not suggest how to fix. Thoughtful comments from the referees and the editor. (This would have been easy to see from reading the intro before sending this to reviewers why not desk-reject instead of wasting author and reviewer time?). Comments were sharp and precise and resulted in a much better paper. relatively fast, but referees totally uninformed of the literature. Rejected after revision for reasons that had nothing to do with the revision and should've been brought up on the first decision. One fairly high-quality report, one not-so good. Desk rejected in less than a week. Interviewing at the ASSA meetings. 1 report was nonsensical and tipped it to rejection, two very weak reports, editor obviously did not read the paper, overall very bad experience. The editor rejected after 12 months mentioning 4 referee reports. One referee was extremely favourable, the other's comments were needlessly rude and completely hostile. Other than that, the process was good. Editor agreed = reject. 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. Desk rejected in 2 days with a very short report "better fit for a finance journal". Overall very good experience. Avoid at all costs. Editor didn't believe our identification. May 2019 - Post-doc, Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at Virginia Tech Carilion, Roanoke, VA. Spring 2020 - Nanjing Audit University, Gulou, Nanjing, China. Paper desk rejected in 3 days. Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. However, it would probably help to read some of Joanna Lahey's work to get a sense of the state-of-art methods with these audit studies." quick and clear communication with editor. There was supposed to be a third referee report that was not received, which may have been the reason for the time between submission to decision. Interesting but not a good fit. One report after 18 months. Still, I have to contact them again after 9 weeks because they did nothing with my paper. Disappointed with the result, but the experience was okay. The other referee has no idea what I am doing. My paper was much of empirical. . Revisions done in another two months and sent back to referees. They all got published in other journals and a book. Fantastic experience (accepted first round), Directly accepted within one month. I am not in a club, whatever it is.). One very good report, one OK. One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal. Less than 24 hours.Rogert J. Barro was the editor. Efficient process and fast decision. Write any form of equation and you're skewered! He clearly did not read the paper and wrote a pretty much standard rejection that had nothing to do with the paper. The worst experience I ever had in over 20 years. Hard to believe. Would never submit anything to these people again and would never recommend to anyone else either. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. Reports were of moderate quality. Total 6 months. In case of desk rejection, they should return the submission fee. Very quick and extremely professional. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. Referee didn't think the contribution is significant enough, so straight reject. Form letter. 2 strong reports with valid empirical critiques, 1 less so. The editor informed us that the contribution of the paper was not high enough for this journal although the topic has been examined in the past by other papers in this Journal. One detailed report. One referee does not follow simple math, immediately assumes the model is wrong and the editor takes his side. 5 months, disappointing experience. No feedback at all. editor was nice enough to drop a page or so of precise and useful comments. 1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. The referee reports were crap (minor points without really saying anything about the research question, the methodology and the results of the paper). Same referee as for a previous submission to a high-ranked journal. STAY AWAY from this journal! Very good experience, Good experience. Helpful and honest reviews. 8 Days to get a desk reject. Two reports were reasonable and one report was very low quality. Fast desk reject but zero useful information. Very tough but very useful report! Awful experience. First two reports were "not general interest enough" and didn't have much to say substantively as a result (1-2 pages). Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. Some useful comments from his friend. Not a good referee match given papers subject matter and therefore not very useful comments. One few sentence report after 5 month. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. Very inefficient handling process. Very slow process but happy to get accepted. Not much to complain about. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. Overall, good experience. Needless to say, the error is not as such, Bad reports (full of mistakes, pointed out to AE but didn't work), Assigned to an associate editor and got desk reject. Desk reject after 2 months. almost useless and the editor is too slow. Said the contribution was not enough for a JFE publication. One nasty and not helpful review, but two others were very constructive. Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). Good experience. University of Sheffield. Accepted without revisions. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. Referee only comments on the first half of the paper. Desk rejection in one week. Woman completes quintessentially English mission to eat 244 scones across U.K. professional. Note: previous desk rejected paper there was published in a much better journal. Unhappy with the outcome of course, but pleased with the process and the handling. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Job Market. It took almost two month for a desk reject. Good editor. No comments from Katz except go to field journal. At this point, the editor asked us to review the abstract and the highlights. Two good referee reports, useful comments, theory; 2 decent referee reports and 1 suggestive letter from an editor. Two reports of middling quality. Very fast process. I had much better experience in American Journal of Health Economics. Not surprised to hear that the impact of the journal is going down. But we are still hopeful. Amazing experience. We did. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. 3 months for conference decision and 2 months of journal decision. One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. Good process (and none of the coauthors are from 02139). I expected better from this journal. Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California (USA) This post is a continuous work in . seven weeks to say poor fit when similar and cited papers are published there. Some conflicting recomms that editor didn't address. Quick, very good feedback. Under 2 weeks for a desk reject. I believe that if that is the reason it could have been desk rejected. Process a bit slow. Desk rejection after 8 days. Highly recommended. 2 quick rounds of R&R. Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. This guy really needs to not be a referee if he can not do a thorough job in actually reading paper. 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. Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. I am an assistant professor at Universit de Montral. One referee did read the paper, the other responded with odd arguments. Reminded several times and after waiting 1 year got one referee report. Worst. The paper was published in 2016, Decent referee reports that indeed improve the paper. But first response took a whole year. forthcoming papers by the Chief editor shoshana. Strongly recommend this journal for health economists! It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. Clearly the paper was not good enough for the JIE. They have not released it, sorry. They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. I am currently studying the interaction between technological and demographic changes and the labor market. In the end the paper got much improved. Very good experience; desk reject with highly valuable and fair comments by the co-editor within 10 days. Referee report was reasonable and improved the paper. Bad referee reports. Rather slow desk reject. Some of the people at my lower 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. Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. One synthetic but straight to the point referee report, asking for very specific and reasonable corrections to the paper. Journal. Between two referee reports and two conference discussions, I have some things to consider for future submission. Too narrow-minded editor. Two reports (half-page each) citing minor issues. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. No letter from the editor. No specific comment from the editor. At least turnaround time was fast: 14 days. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. After careful consideration, the JAPE editorial team considers the paper is largely a statistics exercise. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. Got two most useless reports ever. Admittedly, they must receive a lot of submissions, but that does not excuse this. In the meantime they lied to me saying that it was out for review and that they were awaiting referee scores. One stern but very helpful referee report (five pages, competent and extremely detailed) in two weeks. The referee reports were also awful. Actually a nice experience. 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. Two solid referee reports. Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. Revision accepted three hours after submission. very disappointing. 1 report suggesting to cite the Editor's work and speaking about things outside of the scope of the paper. Decent referee reports. 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. Rejected a letter with one referee report but overall experience was good: about 6 weeks, comments sensible will try to implement. Very efficient process. Reports very helpful. The most idiotic referees I've ever seen. Referee clearly didn't read the paper carefully. Poor / no justification for decision. Will not submit here in the future. Desk reject for paper being too narrow for the audience of the journal. Editor sat for two months on completed referee report and rejected without adding any comments. 3 constructive and useful reports. The editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions. Editor recommended to submit to other journals. Outcome was positive in the end, but I had to follow some nonsense instructions from the referees and the editor. Worst experience ever nearly one year just to hear "not much new, therefore reject" 100 bucks for nothing. Milner's an emeritus, what else does he have to do? Other referee didn't have a clue. Editor was Andrew Street. Very bad reports. I had to contact the Editor after 2 months of seeing no change in status on my manuscript. Could've desk-rejected instead of two useless referee reports. Really unprofessional. Resubmitted and then conditional accepted within a week. Referee cites one crucial assumption to kill the paper, but the paper does not make that assumption, and clearly explains it. In general, efficient journal, 2 months, 2 good reports & 1 trash report, fair outcome and ok process. Great process, fortunate to make it past desk as LRM grad student, very helpful ref report received 8 days after submission. Economics Job Market Rumors. Slightly more informative than a desk rejection. Made comments about Maximum Likelihood etc when I was using Method of Simuated Moments. Very unprofessional. Desk rejected thoughtelessly with curious comment paper read more like a book, 8 month desk reject with no reports--JPE is dead to me, desk rejected in a bit over a week, not clear who handled the paper. 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. Economics Job Market Rumors . The least the editor could have done is to assign another editor. Very good referee reports - largely positive but requiring some modifications, deleting one section. 1 reviewer R&R, two reject. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. Nice reports that improve the quality and readability of the paper. I pulled the paper and send it elsewhere. Editor was a bit harsh.
Old Forester Vs Larceny,
Articles E