The referee report is very good and even show a positive view to my paper. Editor acted as 4th referee once referees were satisfied. Quite upsetting. Great experience. Download the MIT Economics Job Market Packet. Horner is a disaster! An Associate Editor clearly read the paper. One positive, three negative. Elsevier is terrible, screwed up the transfer so took over a month to end up on editor's desk. More than 16 weeks!! Referee did clearly said that the main mechanism is not compelling but did not give a single word on why our argument is persuasive or what else we could do to improve. **** this journal. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. Said they would refund the submission fee, which is nice. Referee comments were pretty minor. I had to contact the Editor after 2 months of seeing no change in status on my manuscript. 3 weeks to desk reject. One referee was amazing, the other one added no value. Submission for a special issue. The referee suggested rejection, and the associate editor agreed. Desk accept? Great experience. Very fast and professional referee reports. Desk rejected in 2 weeks, editor recommended sending the paper to a field journal. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. The results just didn't fit their priors. I sent in my paper and after 2 emails requesting information about the status of my manuscript, I was asked to be patient. 6 weeks. No letter from an Associate Editor, so no idea about who rejected the paper. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. However, the quality of the report is very high and it helps improve the paper a lot. Avoid this journal. Two reports with mixed view. Two helpful referee reports. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. This, of course, is useless. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. Recommend trying better journal. STAY AWAY from this journal! No letter from the editor. Reviewer number two said the paper had no relevant contribution beyond those of a paper recently published in a top journal. Boo! 2 very constructive reports, speedy process after resubmission, 2 useless reports by refs who barely skimmed the paper, one completely mistook the tested var & misreported it in his comments, editor's comments (Bill Collins) were smug and obnoxious but shallow, Very disappointing. Submitted in 2012. useless comments from editor. Should be careful to submit. The overall comments are OK. Actually, not as bad as many people think.Reports by referee and AE were of little help (they raised a few valid points), but this can happen at any other journal too. Costas Meghir responses all submissions. Was not worth waiting that long (this is an understatement). One referee, although clearly in favour of publication, asked a good deal of revisions and it took us 4 motnhs to respond so most of the delay may have been our fault. The referees should be (far) better than the illiterate idiot they gave me! Stay away from this journal if you do not have a connection from inside. 9 days. Split reports but very clear advice from editor. But editor is very good, One referee report with no constructive comments. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. The new editor rejected the paper 2 days after submitted it. one positive one negative, editor chose to reject. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. This journal is a bit hell to make it attractive to authors in order to get their money easily. Very quick response from Editor (Otrok) after revision. Got the refund soon after request. not a fair process. Transfer from another Elsevier journal - additional round of R&R but easily satisfied and made the paper better. Excellent review process. Very good experience, Good experience. 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. The reviewers "firmly" recommend rejection but I see that most problems can be fixed. Bad experience. Very poor experience. referees appear to understand the area. The reviewer didn't even bother to read after page 8. A very good experience. Very impressed with comments received by the co-editor (Mark Armstrong), which were more substantive than the reviewers. The referee is clearly not up to the task. Three tough rounds which made the paper better. Quick desk rejection; field journals recommende, Rejected within one week, but useful comments and advice given by editor, Uhlig, justified decison with kind and informed letter from the editor. Friendly email from editor, interesting reports from referees. Took way too long prob will avoid in future. 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. It takes the editor a long time to respond but the comments are very helpful. Silly comments from AE. 3 reports: 2 of them really good, one mediocre. To avoid. Some good comments from reviewers, but all focused on marginal issues. One almost non-existent referee report (basically two lines just saying the paper is not broad enough), one very detailed and overall positive report. Long time to first response, given 3 months for a lengthy (single) report, but resubmitted and was accepted in like 3 hours. Club journal that accepts your paper if you have good ties to the editors. Overall, good experience. Good report, positive rec. Good referee report and very efficient editor. Came back within 4 hours, nice letter by Katz with suggestions of where to submit, 5 days for a desk reject. Journal. Editor read the paper and outlined clear and fair reasons for rejection. Otherwise, great experience. Employers can provide information about their ongoing hiring processes for candidates on the job market. 2 days to get a desk rejection. Mentioned that they do not consider theoretical papers. Job Market. Fast and very competent review. Considering withdrawing. some useful comments, but clear that the referee didn't spend a lot of time on the paper, nor take much effort to follow bits of it that weren't conventional. Editor was polite. 1 reject and 1 R&R. Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. The editor emailed me after 6 days and said he read and liked the paper. Horrible reports. Submission refund. Rejected by editor with a comment that referees might not like the paper, Desk rejected after 1 month without any comments. Rejected on grounds of the paper not "establishing a new set of empirical facts that theory must confront" (Eric Leeper). 2 strong reports with valid empirical critiques, 1 less so. It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. I was pleased with the experience because I've never made this far with them. The reason given was something along the lines of well we can't read everything. But we are still hopeful. We will not be making any further offers this year. withdrew the paper after contacting the journal twice. Two careful reports with good feedback. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. I resubmitted in January, and the paper was accepted with minor revisions in March. 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. RR with major changes, then RR with minor changes, then accepted after 1 week. It took them 10 months to say anything and at the end even though the referees asked for revisions and were positive the editor rejected the paper. Suggested top field journal. 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). Economics Job Market Rumors . Three months for an "out of scope" decision. Post an advertisement. Unfortunately paper was assigned to handling editor who was on study leave. Very long process. Editor sat for two months on completed referee report and rejected without adding any comments. Good experience. Editor rejected. Letter gives no mention of reasons for rejection and even unclear on paper's final status. Liran Einav 650-723-3704 leinav@stanford.edu. Appreciate the quick turnaround. Also very fast. Reasonable comments from referees. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. I wonder how an editor can accept such low-quality output from the referees. One of the referee reports was of alarmingly low quality. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. Desk reject after two weeks. We did. Overall experience is horrible. Terrible referees. Desk Rejected after 2 days. Received the standard 50% fee refund (wow, so useful), Generic desk reject w/o further information, Desk rejected after about 1 month. We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. inquiry after 6 month: "several referees invited but still no reports", rejected after 9 month: "sent the paper to four reviewers but only received two reports". Two rounds of review. 4 months with the editor before being sent to referees. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. Wish the outcome was different, but the turnaround time couldn't have been better. Annoying! Well argued rejection with helpful comments. Still took 3 months. Editor recommended to submit to other journals. Paper desk rejected in 3 days. Courteous notes from editor&co-editors when first response was delayed. Most dishonest rejection. Withdrew July 31, 2017. Very good reports and editor was clear about what were most important points to improve in the revision. Outcome was positive in the end, but I had to follow some nonsense instructions from the referees and the editor. The site, commonly known as econjobrumors.com (its full name is Economics Job Market Rumors), began as a place for economists to exchange gossip about who is hiring and being hired in the . Desk rejection in 3 days. Low quality comments from Frank Sloan. Only had to face one reviewer in the second round. The acceptance came quickly after the second round of review. 7 days from first submission to minor revision. Editor did not add any comments. Campus visits. Reasonably quick. An extremely meager, short, embarassing, useless report. Horrible experience. Oh well, on to the next journal. Disappointing as paper got some fine ref reports in another top journal and revised. He further suggested an exercise that was already illustrated in 2 figures, 1 table and described in the text! Editor read the paper and outlined clear (and fair) reasons for rejection. 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. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. Editor letter saying that what we do is not so new. Maybe paper is not good enough, but the "report" was not convincing either. reports, the reports were all nice an constructive. Two months for desk reject -- no comments given. Editor makes no attempt to reconcile conflicting reports or, One good referee report. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. Editor uninterested. 10 days for desk reject. One ref in favor, one against. 1 week. Two reviewers recommended rejection. 6 months and no feedback from the journal whtsoever. "Growing by the Masses: Revisiting the Link between Firm Size and Market . Strong referees. One positive report, one mixed and one negative. True, no time wasted, just the $125 submission fee. Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. Two reviews - one very positive, and one that was clearly from someone outside of the field that was not familiar with the methods or the literature. Decent reports. 1 fair and 1 insulting referee report after waiting more than 10 months! Waste of time, Ok process, but referees either did not read the paper carefully or were inexpert in the field, Referee does not understand the purpose of the paper, clearly not a specialist of the field ; published elsewhere. The other referee was serious however. Initial response slow, then extremely quick after R&R. Good helpful report asking for few corrections. This journal is a scam! Basically max 3-month turnaround from their side at any stage. Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. Quick to online first. The third one very general and less useful. So they had no idea about basic econometrics. Decent referee reports, good turnaround time. One referee not only did not read the paper but criticized something the paper does not do at all! Strongly recommend this journal for health economists! Per editor, not good fit for IO bent of the journal, not broad enough for general interest journal. I was very grateful despite the rejection. Deadline: 2023-03-06. One positive one negative. One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. Answer in 24h. One magnificient + one so-so ref report. Went downstairs for some snack. 1 on the fence. The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. Will never submit unless the editor is changed to an economist, Referees did not put much efforts. re?write ?the ?paper ?with ?the ?help ?of ?some one? The other without serious suggestions. Culter said that there was backlog at JHE. 19. One referee with very helpful reports. Three months. Best experience ever. Overall good experience. His reports were completely crap. improved paper based on comments. Very good journal, with reactive editorial assistant (Sabah Cavalo), and very good and constructive comments. 1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. One referee report was very good; the second was also modestly helpful. Do not submit to this journal. Very helpful referee report. FYI: Your editor sucks). The editor did not read the paper and just sided with the hostile referee. The negative one is essentially saying "it's not game theory so I don't care." Six months to respond. One few sentence report after 5 month. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. Extremely valuable referee reports and advices from the editor. Good reports. The AE was gentle and actually read my paper. Fast turnaround, I'm very happy with the experience. Rejected a letter with one referee report but overall experience was good: about 6 weeks, comments sensible will try to implement. Apparently the assigned coeditor left and paper got stuck. Nice reports. It than took the editor (Mark Watson) another 6 months to read reports and make a decision. One extremely hostile report written by someone who is clearly trying to delay my results from coming out and another one paragraph report recommending minor revisions. Generic desk reject within 2 weeks. Such a waste of my valuable time. Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. Editor mentioned additional points and suggested a field journal as an alternative. reviewer reports were okay, but the process took so long. The other referee recommended revision. Miserable. Really improved the paper. one of the requests advanced was indeed something that was dealt with in a specific section of the paper, making me think that the referee quicly skimmed through the paper without proper attention). Do not send a paper to BE JM, Very bad experience. Invited to revise and resubmit the paper. Poor comments, one paragraph each asking for minor changes but rejected. Comments from Larry very helpful. Lasted 4 days! econjobrumors.com Traffic Analytics & Market Share | Similarweb Not much to complain about. Strongly recommend submitting there. Job Market. Good referee report + some comments from AE. 9 months for 1 2-page referee report. Reject with two referee reports, one gives constructive comments, one rejects with half a page report, saying the paper is not for a general readership. Pretty stupid rationale based on lack of methodological innovation. Journal: Utilities Policy (was not included as a journal to chose). Unanswered letters to editor by the 6th and 12th months after submission, only got reply after getting in touch to editorial office. Not a good experience. Decent reports. No reason given (just lack of fit..), no suggestions to improve, no money back. I suspect whether Penny Goldberg is competent. One report was very useful. Great editor with quick response time too. After waiting for 6 months, I sent a polite email to the editor asking if the paper fell through the cracks. We saw none. Technical issues handled by non-experts. Desk rejected after 3 days from Shleifer. Very short to the point referee report. Quality suggestions from all three reports & editor. Will never submit to this journal again. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data. One useful report, the other poor. Editor obviously read the paper. Good experience, strong feedback. The whole process was fast and streamlined. Much faster than last experience with the journal, same result. one referee report was in after three months, AE waited 9 months before making a recommendation. PhD & Postdoctoral Research Fellow Job Market Candidates 2022 - 2023 Home Page CV ANDREW HANNON PHD Research Fields: Macroeconomics, Household Finance, Sovereign Debt, Financial Stability and the Housing Market Job Market Paper: Falling Behind: Delinquency and Foreclosure in a Housing Crisis References: Dr. . quick and clear communication with editor. I feel that mediocre editors are too scared to consider papers unless at least one of the authors is a big shot. Desk rejection based on lack of fit, altough there were at least 4 papers published on the same topic in previous years. I have no problem receiving a desk-reject, but the stated reasons show no understanding of our research. Pok Sang Lam rejected with few comments. My paper was much of empirical. One was thoughtful report, pointed to at least one direction we can improve. Rapid desk reject - editor stated paper was rejected because of applied context (sports), Good reports, led to significantly better paper, Good experience, nice though critical editor, total time to acceptance 10 months. Referees lukewarm, Foster took time and effort to explain his decision, also indicated a number of pathways to strengthen the paper. Very Detailed construtive reports. Editor actually read the paper. Very quick response from Larry Katz. Waited 2 months for the paper to be assigned to an editor. Took a while, but great experience overall. 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) A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. He clearly did not read the paper and wrote a pretty much standard rejection that had nothing to do with the paper. Quick desk reject and no comments of substance (form letter) but no cost of submission. Giles is a great editor. AER:Insights - Larry Samuelson, Very polite, slightly more than standard rejection letter, saying - not a good fit, although enjoyable.
How To Get Superhuman V2 In Blox Fruits, Florida Man September 5, 2005, Amab Androgynous Clothing, 2021 Tulip Time Festival, Best Shin Guards For Slow Pitch Softball, Articles E