econ job market rumors wikibest freshman dorm at coastal carolina

Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. Very short and no relevant comments. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. The AE report made no sense at all, and had very little substance. Pleasant first publication experience. Lastly withdrew for good after another six months. Desk reject after 2 months. 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. 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. Two reports give constructive comments and comments from the third report seem not understand the paper. Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. Ref report definitely helpful. Didn't let it go, Editor told him to "#"# off and published the paper anyway. What is up with Econ Job Rumors? : r/academiceconomics - reddit American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. 6 weeks to get desk rejected for not being of general interest. 2 shortish referee reports one fairly positive the other fairly negative, editor decided to reject based on lack of originality. A black bitch barks at East Europe. Reports were ok, but total process took way too long. (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?). Overall smooth process. decent referee reports, overall good experience. It took too long, I do not know if I would submit there again. Editor sat on completed reports for 2 months to give a two sentence rejection response. Expedient. The first response took more than I expected, but the referee's comment was very constructive. Quick and professional handling by the editor. The other negative and low-quality. Over the past six years, the department has placed a total of 128 graduates in academic, research, and government jobs. A shame the editor sided with the second. Desk rejection would be normal, but the journal has changed dramatically the orientation towards family firms. R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. Editor's letter mentioned a 2-1 split in favor of rejection, so she rejected. University of Sheffield. Fast decision after resubmit. Fair editor. Economic Theory Bulletin. Down side: reports are quite short: 1 paragraph each. The paper was not sent to the referee but instead the editor said it was reviewed by the editorial board. Reports are not very detailed, but generally comments are fair. Editor mentioned additional points and suggested a field journal as an alternative. Very fast process but no comment from the Associate Editor. Helpful editor. With editor for 1.5 month. Worst experience ever. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. Very pleasant experience! Fast desk reject, no substantial comments. Quick (10 days), but useless. Rather weird outcome but quite quick for a journal of its reputation. Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Putea MatuaWellington - New Zealand, Assistant Director, Economics Worst experience ever nearly one year just to hear "not much new, therefore reject" 100 bucks for nothing. They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. Editor Bruce Hollingsworth suggested an alternative journal. Both referees clearly read the paper and discussed potential concerns of the analysis. Two weeks to desk reject. Overall, good experience with IREF. Funny thing is Editor endorsed reviewer's response. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. Overall decent and professional expert reports. The outcome (referee rejection) was acceptable but 5 month waiting is a large waste of time! The editor was Christian Pop-Eliches. Desk rejected in 3 days. Editor just pointed at reports and made no obvious effort to think about the paper. said it was a matter of fit. Overall good experience. Actually took nearly 15 months. Economics, Tenured/Tenure-track Advertiser: Various departments, New York University Shanghai Field(s) of specialization: Econometrics - Microeconomics One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. Desk Reject took 4 months. Fast process. Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. Positive feedback from the editor. Superficial comment. Applying for academic jobs. Surprised at how quickly all went. Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. one nasty and rudely written report with inaccuracies as well, one cited lack of fit. Very long time to receive the first decision (major revision). Nice words from Editor. Amazing efficiency. Submitted more than 2 months, still shown the status as "under ADM", 5 months first RR, 5 months second RR, 2 weeks final acceptance. Referees basically thought contribution was too small to merit publishing. All reports are positive. Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days. The second one is ok, but rejects for some peculiar reasons. Conley is a tremendous editor. Rejected by editor. Fairly quick acceptance. One good quality referee with good comments and suggestions. One extremely thorough and helpful report, one shorter but still raising valid points. Very bad experience. Submitted July 2012, short empirical paper, still waiting for first response. Rejected within two weeks. Comments are not useful at all. Desk reject after 1 month. Relatively high submission fee. My paper was on Covid and one ref was clearly not an economist, suggesting medical/health indicators, references and logic; impossible to satify I think with economics arguments. Only got form letter. One referee report was fine. Young is defined by the year of the first publication in any form. Crappy reports. Three good reports and fair decision. Polite / nice email from Editor. Mostly decent reports raising fair points, OK experience. Each report was one small paragraph long. 6 weeks for two reasonable referee reports. Under two month for two reports. One very good referee report, one useless one. Overall, fair process. Two month for two detailed reports. Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). The editor provided one. Really unfortunate waste of time. Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. Overall, very good experience. 2 weeks for desk reject. 3 constructive and useful reports. Very good handling of the process. Very good experience, the editor (Aizenman) was very fast. desk reject in 2.5 hrs? I believe that if that is the reason it could have been desk rejected. Some interesting comments, but not much. Once that work was published, he finally accepted the paper. That mean 5 people read my paper? Will submit again.. Except when I have coauthored with someone who is at an elite school, I've been desk rejected every time at QJE. Currently 20 months of waiting after first submission. Economics Job Market Rumors. Withdrew article from consideration after 18 months of wait. Accepted version was greatly improved. More importantly, the analysis is flawed by a number of major shortcomings. Excellent reports. Hollifield copy-pasted unsubstantiated claims in rejection letter apparently without even having a look on the paper. Probably just a grad student who could only understand calculations. See Alice Wu's paper for details. Going through 15 months of the reviewing process. (Fair?) Worst experience, A very very slow journal. It seems to me that the editor rejected based on how well the article was written, rather than the substance of the work. no submission fee but fast response and fair referee report. All queries tough but manageable - only difficulty was having 3 refs say sometimes contradictory things. Good referee report and very efficient editor. Decent reports. Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions. Desk reject within 1 day. Pathetic referee reports. had to withdraw, Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. Extremely valuable referee reports and advices from the editor. Quite fast luckily. Decent referee reports. Received two detailed reports, which were reasonably useful. Editor didn't read the paper. Grad student who manages inbox for ed took bad review at face value. No response for seven and a half months. Weak editor. One referee was in favour of a strong R&R, the other recommended rejection on the basis of mathematical error, the AD seconded the latter. candidates received letter saying search now closed- did anyone get the position? Great comments from editors and referees. Journal is basically a scam now. And mentioned class struggle. That is, the handling of the submission took almost 4 months, I think this is unacceptable: what is the point to have quick referee reports if the editorial team takes such a long time? UCLA Economics. Note that some areas need filling in with actual pages. Very smooth process. Rejection without arguments/referee report. The results just didn't fit their priors. He said he liked my paper and thought it was inventive. great referee report, great editor, not so great AE, Two good reports providing many suggestions regarding how I should modify and extend the paper. To summarize, this reviewer apparently thought he had better English than Shakespeare. two referee reports. Two very useful referee reports. One good referee report, one referee who had no idea. Reviewer number two said the paper had no relevant contribution beyond those of a paper recently published in a top journal. Charging for this should be a crime. Definitely recommend submitting to the journal. I wish them luck. I guess I had the luck of being assigned to two business school types with absolutely no idea of the literature that my model belonged to. Fair enough. Two weeks. One positive report, one negative, editor's reject decision. rejection after 9 months without any useful comments. One very good referee report, based on which the paper is improved significantly. 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. Good reports. These advices do make the paper better. 1 paragraph of superficial non-descriptive comments from each ref, One week to desk reject with no comment at all. The editor barely read the paper and decided to reject! Expected better from an AEJ. We got referee rejection in 2.5 months: 2 referees, one favours RR, other rejects. Got rejection after 4 months. I withdrew the paper. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. Will submit again (other work, of course) on the basis of professionalism and treatment. The referee acted as if I didn't cite and discuss papers mentioned in the report. Overall, not bad experience. Expected a lot better from this journal. One referee report only. 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. Very long wait. We may have been aiming too high. Couple of comments why the paper does not fit (relatively reasonable). 4 months for first report, 5 months for second, only to be rejected by referee. Rejected in 4 days, editor said work was done net resting but not broad enough. The reason was that the, Andrew Samwick rejected within 2 days, Topic is too speacialized for EL. 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 reviewers "firmly" recommend rejection but I see that most problems can be fixed. It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Desk rejected in a month. Education, Labor, Gender, Development and Public Policies. Ended up being a better paper. relatively high quality referee reports, huge amount of work needed to format the paper according to the editorial guidelines as they receive little typesetting support from publisher. bargaining? The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. Worst experience with a journal so far. Extremely fast and helpful. Two referees, two weak R&Rs, editor rejects despite the recommendations of referees. Editor suggested JIE. After revision was done the AE decided to reject without sending to referees! 84 W Santa Clara Street, Suite 770, San Jose, CA 95113. Highly recommended. solution? however,? Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. Good handling by the editor (Reis). Suggested different journals, very efficient. Second one was about 15 lines. Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. Good comments, made the paper better. Very quick response. Quite useful to provide further extensions, Fast processing and three excellent referees that helped to substantially improved the paper. There's this cute girl who plays guitar very badly in just her bra on YouTube, Hyatt Hotels, Data Scientist- posted one week ago, 982 applicants, Young men reveal why so many of them are single: Dates feel more like job inter, A day in the life of childless single broette, "Just get an industry job" - It's not that simple. 6 months for useless reports. The decision is motivated by acceptable reasons and suggest potential alternative journals. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. One very good report, 6 pages long. One of those cases where the paper though rejected improved significantly as a result. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. Hellwig rejected, suggested 2nd tier journal such as ET. He suggests AER Insights and top field journals. Obviously an inevitably subjective decision, but given this, the handling was very fair. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. 20 Feb 2023. Well-run journal. Home Help Search Welcome Guest. I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. Research Interests : Digital Platforms & Society, Regulatory Uncertainty on Digital Platforms. Checked my e-mail and editor rejected the paper. One very thorough that discussed on every paper point.Good experience, out of scope for this journal, although the most cited paper in this journal also addresses the same research problem, Bad experience. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. More than 16 weeks!! Two decent, one useless and completely wrong. Single ref report had three very minor questions. This was back when Bill Evans was editor. Very quick. Referee comments generally useful and positive, but guest editor made desicsion to reject given preferences - fair enough really. In a typical year, every MIT Economics PhD graduate finds a job. One fairly high-quality report, one not-so good. Not easy - but straightforward. Thorough referee reports with substantive comments. Will submit here again. Journal response was quick. Pleasant experience overall. got the impression that the reviewer did not read the paper and decided to dispute the review, the dispute process took slightly more than 1 month and the new reviewer sided with the old reviewer. Avoid that journal. Rejected within 24hrs by Katz. took the money. Process was a complete disgrace. but i think it is an important one that should be considered a bonafide econ journal. Excellent Editorial Comments. Very fast. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. 4 weeks for desk rejection is too much. No response to requests. Single-blind review system for a 250 bucks fee. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. Came back with a reject, but reports were at least somewhat useful. Overall, bad experience. Editors keep delaying despite returned reports, seems to be a pattern with this journal. Economics Job Market Updates / Wiki Basically max 3-month turnaround from their side at any stage. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. Incredibly insulting rejection that made it clear the referee had not read past the first 2 pages of the paper. Easy Process. if we go by his saying, then all finance articles are purely pointless. Positive comments from the editor. The status are always the same "under review". The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. The first revision took around 5 months. Nice reports. Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports. The editor (Hongbin Li) rejects because of lack of fir with the journal's mission. I have no problem receiving a desk-reject, but the stated reasons show no understanding of our research. In only four sentences, ref manages to contradict himself. The editor decided to reject, I am not in the club. Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). Great experience! The paper was accepted after I incorporated all suggestions in R&R. WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). Formal letter in less than 10 days returning my manuscript. Two short referee reports straight to the point. Editor desk rejected after a couple of days due to lack of fit. Although the paper fits to one of their categories. 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. Considering withdrawing. Good experience, even my paper was rejected. Desk rejected. But the editor (Kunst) decided to "follow the referee's advice to reject your submission", even though there was no indication of such a recommendation in the RR. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. Same referee takes about half an hour to conclude the math is wrong, yet takes 5 months to submit his report. Desk-rejected in 3 days. Referee reports were lenthy and very useful. One positive one negative. Departament | Facultat d'Economia i Empresa - Job Market Candidates Harrington and the anonymous reviewer. Professional co-editor and referee. Students on the Job Market - NYU Stern - New York University Good editor. apologize.? Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. A very good experience. Editor noted that paper of an associate editor was not cited but did not mention the name of the paper. Poor reports. 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. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. Editor was a little bit lazy as it took him two months after receiving the ref report to answer. Not recommended. Not cool, 6 pages report trying to find reasons to reject, another report was copy paste from 3 previous submissions stating I dont belive your assumptions. by Tatonnement Oct 1, 2008 18:58:14 GMT -5: Legend. It took me a lot of time to deal with unqualified comments. Though reports with constructive comments, Tough and fair refereeing. Gorodnichenko was nice. So-so report. Editor rejected on the basis of being too narrow. 5 months for a desk reject! Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff. more months, before rejection based on superficial comments. Good referee reports. 3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal. You won't get in unless you are in the 'cabal'. Economics Job Market. Great letter from Nezih G and two good referee reports. Overall very good experience. The co-editor was very efficient and apparently read the paper. Submission to a special issue. Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. Nice editor. The revised submission was accepted within a month. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. Referred to field, seems editor at least scanned and maybe even read the whole thing. Very good experience! Not belonging to the club implies rejection. Terrible experience. 1 report from a senior researcher, who thinks that our paper is a fine exercise but suits field journal better. Very slow in responding inquiries. Expected better, expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision. Katz very thoughtful and helpful editor letter. Actually, 57 months in total. Good reports that were specific and helpful. Good process (and none of the coauthors are from 02139). Another awful experience -- but par for the course. 4 months for a letter w/o referee report. The first note of the referee claimed that I didn't do something I clearly did. One positive review, one negative, referee took the side of the negative. Not very fast but good in overall. Very good referee reports. very quick response and a useful referee report. Lengthy, in-depth reports. 2022 Job Market Candidates . 2 decent reports. Difficulties to reach the editor, but useful report and very fast decision (1 day) after submitted the revised manuscript. Bad process. Nedless to say I got no referee report even after asking. No regrets, Good reports, not extremely helpful, but good. Finance Job Rumors (489,527) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,815) Micro Job Rumors (15,246) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,029) China Job Market (103,535) Industry Rumors (40,351) While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. Pretty efficient turnaround. Smooth process, a bit too much work for this journal. It is run by "Kirk", [1] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. Not enough novelty. Generic desk reject within 2 weeks. Two reports. Excellent ref report. Submitting to JME first was really worth it. Desk rejected within 7 days. the difference was not economically meaningful. Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. Referees mostly wanted me to provide more background and a deeper policy discussion. That's not true. WE got 3 tough and long referee reports. EconJobRumors - EverybodyWiki Bios & Wiki At first the handling editor informed us that the paper is sent for peer review. Very useful comments from referees. Long process but well worth it! Will never submit there again. AER:Insights - Larry Samuelson, Very polite, slightly more than standard rejection letter, saying - not a good fit, although enjoyable. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Close callEditor gave the benefit-of-a-doubt and requested revisions, one good referee, the other not very good, helpful editor, overall, pretty smooth process (always easier to say when the paper ends up being published). I didn't know that JHR is a general interest journal! Very efficient. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. The editor handling the paper had no idea about the literature. Was contacted again after another two years promising that my paper was to be considered, and say yes please do. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. one referee pointed to their own working paper which is still not published (jan 2017), Positive: 1 high quality referee report and some comments by the co-editor; Negative: 2 other referee reports of medium to very low quality. Two weeks and they not assigned a manuscript ID number. Avoid if you can. Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. 2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. Paper is about a politically charged issue, so I would like to think that more than one reviewer should be asked to submit a report. Very quick route to getting useful reports. I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. One report only, not very helpful, relatively slow for just one report. Bar-Isaak is the editor in charge (much better than others like nocke). One was more helpful than the other. Great comments from editor. Econ Job Market Rumors Accounting | Now Hiring Great experience. Took 7 months to get one referee report. Editor and co-editor are extremely nice and supportive. 2 reports minimal work, 1 report some work. Good experience. We give the editors one week to judge the overall contribution and if acceptable send your paper to an associate editor. I only regret not withdrawing this. Would definitely submit here again. 2 years and counting, for a small paper. Editor took issue with a methodological aspect of the paper and rejected. Generic letter. Not only is it accepted, but it also becomes a much better paper now. Website | CV One report after 18 months. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Isnt it written that this journal focuses on mathematical reasoning instead of sticking to conventional setup? Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. Went downstairs for some snack. He/she also asked unrelated information such as why the market offer two similar contracts, which is not the scope of the study. 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit. Useless reports. Generous comments from editor and referees, lenghty referee reports; rejection because of one referee even though I discuss his point. We did. "In order to speed up and improve the submission process for both authors and referees, we have raised the number of papers that we reject without seeking reports.". Finance Job Rumors (488,736) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,359) Micro Job Rumors (15,223) Macro Job Rumors (9,790) European Job Market (100,917) China Job Market (103,439) Industry Rumors (40,300) Very good experience. fluent ?in? Thanks Amy! A short piece from an expert in the field. No flyouts yet. I? Very good referee reports. Very bad experience as referee kept asking for more and more and finally said document was now too long and findings not interesting enough. Accepted without need for further revisions. 2 weeks to generic desk reject with no comments whatsoever. Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). The editor decided major revision. I think s/he would have been satisfied by an appendix section on the issue raised. It's going to be most accurate for economics, political science, public policy & other professional schools. 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. All are lengthy and constructive. interesting and polite reports. very comprehensive report. Some not so fair. One positive and one negative. Pretty average speed compared to other journals. Two referee reports. Got the refund soon after request. it.?I? Okay experience overall, 3 weeks for a two sentence desk rejection which suggested submitting to a more specialist journal, Overall good experience. Bad experience. Two reports with mixed view.

Lara Biggest Loser Australia Now, Articles E