econ job market rumors wiki econ job market rumors wiki

Overall, not bad experience. Economics Job Market Rumors Off Topic Technology. Quick -- 3 days after editor was assigned. Great experience. The paper is now much stronger. Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. Second report very good. Quick desk rejection from the Editor (about a week). In an attempt to argue that young women and girls, many in their teens, voluntarily contracted themselves into sex work at the so-called "comfort stations" set up by the Imperial Japanese military during World War II, the article contains a . Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). Great comments from editor. Ok experience. Not so much from the Associate Editor. 5 months for a desk reject! To be honest, I had a hard time understanding exactly what the point of your paper is. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Editor had a "confidential" report that he wouldn't share, and on the basis of that chose rejection. And some more nice words. 1 serious person pushing his method. When we chased, we received detailed referee reports and R&R quickly, but were given just 2 weeks to make massive changes to the paper - we withdrew and used comments to publish elsewhere. Two years for such outcome. Desk reject two days after I submitted the manuscript. Took way to long for three one page poor quality reports. Emailed the editor at JPE for a brief explanation of why the paper was desk rejected so that I could improve it. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. One of them gave some good suggestions, but I disagree with some other points she made. Best experience in a long time. Editor took issue with a methodological aspect of the paper and rejected. Not a good fit. Editor didn't even read the paper and rejected it. He wanted to give the paper a careful read and this was not possible immediately. Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper, no longer a serious all purpose journal imho; "desk reject" after 6 mos on the basis of style in the abstract, Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded, One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end, Terrible experience. No comments whatsoever, in an un-signed email with 2 generic sentences, Desk rejected after one week with kind words from co-editor and recommended field journal, Poor justification, pure taste by Debraj Ray. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. Quite annoyed at this journal - AE provided verbatim the referee rejection from another submission journal from three months prior. Editors reject the paper. Please Login or . Desk reject within 1 day. Two referee reports and one report from the associate editor. Editor identity unknown. Cool editor. Referee reports were very good, constructive and tough. Extremely poor experience. My new favorite journal, Very clear instructions from editor for revision. nice experience. Asim I. Khwaja editor, Two out of three referee reports were good one was much less. Referees' comments were useful. Rejected in 10 days. 2 informed reports + very detailed comments and guidance by the AE. Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. RR with major changes, then RR with minor changes, then accepted after 1 week. But I'm not in any club and not at an elite school (by choice). Desk rejected in 2 weeks, editor recommended sending the paper to a field journal. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Took a while, but great experience overall. Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. Nothing happened. Reviewers likely not in my area; rather superficial comments. In the first three, the referees took 3 months and tehn 9 months to take care of comments. Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. 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. Excellent process. Very good experience. Four months for a desk reject! I don't know what to add. Demanding but helpful referee reports. Rejected after revision, very good comments in initial round. Desk rejected the next day. The IJIO has a rapid review process. "Not a good fit". Rejected as "Given the poor quality of provincial GDP statistics, CER has decided not to publish papers based on provincial GDP data for now until the true data series at the provincial level are reconstructed" but they are still publishing with this data see for instance Lv, Liu, and Li 2020 Fiscal incentives, competition, and investment in China. Complete waste of time. Generic letter from editor. Rejection after 3 days. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. fast turnaround. It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. Overall, bad experience. Two useless reports for a paper that has been accepted by another journal of general interest. A long wait but not very helpful comments. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. Editorial process was efficient and fair. Upon inspection these papers are only superficially related. My first submission in AE and it is the best experience ever. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. 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. Two referee reports, one engaged and constructive, the other written in incredibly poor English that took issue with some phrases I used. Overall good experience. 1 was more positive and ref. Desk accept? (Fair?) Rejected for arbitrary reasons. Other than that, the process was good. As best I can tell, the purpose is to use a particular modeling framework to illustrate that a trade policies defined in terms of 'import-export' quotas cannot yield a Nash equilibrium of the trade game. The reviewers "firmly" recommend rejection but I see that most problems can be fixed. Hello! Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. The top traffic source to econjobrumors.com is Direct traffic, driving 56.39% of desktop visits last month, and Organic Search is the 2nd with 42.93% of traffic. Recommended field journals. 2 quality ref reports + brief comments by editor. Desk rejected within 10 days because the topic was not fit to the journal (it may have been a reasonable response given the topic). Fast desk reject. When pressed, editor said we weren't doing the same things as everyone else. Ref2 was not. About 3 weeks turnaround. One of the papers has over 3000 citations. They keep the submission fees, very efficient cash cow! It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response. Bad journal. 10 days in total!!! editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". Entire process takes 1 month. After revise and resubmit, was rejected, Next year, similar article appeared in the journal authored by one of the associate editors. It took 5 months to get a desk reject, with a polite letter from the editor that the paper would be a good fit for a field journal. The editor (Hongbin Li) rejects because of lack of fir with the journal's mission. Eight months is a long wait though. The editor (Ravikumar) gave me an R&R with reasonable requirements. Simply put, the reviewer does not believe in my results (simulations from calibrated macroeconomic model). 10 months is too long to get back. Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. The whole process took about a little bit more than a year, which is very good. Not much to complain about. 1 referree was critical, but offered great suggestions, other 2 were mediocre at best. The editor VanHoose made some good comments though. Came back with a reject, but reports were at least somewhat useful. Editor did not even read the paper correctly. It seems to me that the editor rejected based on how well the article was written, rather than the substance of the work. At this point, the editor asked us to review the abstract and the highlights. Although the other referee was positive, editor rejected it. Nice reports. Mostly unhelpful report filled with numerous unnecessary resentful and bitter. 8 days for a desk rejection. Desk rejected, one sentence given. "Referee report" Biggest joke on Earth!! People need filters. Very fast experience at last. Excellent and helpful comments from both referees and the editor. Editor provided a letter with comments. Initial response for R&R was quite fast, but the second response after the resubmission took quite a long time, and it seems that the paper was just sitting at the editor's desk for more than a month before they were assigned back to the referees. Reject because apparently would not fit in their journal. Desk rejected after more than 6 months without any review or comments. Paper rejected based on the editor's phone conversation with the referee. Excellent comments from reviewers. Helpful comments from reviewer and editor. Much improved paper. Gave a quick explanation and said they did a thorough read of the paper. Two reports. Fast and uninformative. The referee checked my citations and offered helpful comments. Very professional handling of the editor with very detailed comments and helpful reports. International Review of Financial Analysis. The Referee Report was very helpful and quite positive. Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. Very slow process. Polite, even quite positive reports. One very good report, the other OK. Economics Job Market Rumors . Desk reject in 7 days. Job Market. Very quick response. Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). The paper was not a good fit as it did not he approach does not engage the distinctive public choice literature. Long reports with some good comments. desk rejection within 1 week. Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. Focus of decision appeared to be on the institutional context of the paper rather than considering the economics. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, Ore. Nearly 600 will lose their jobs. Please add AERi to the combo box. 3 weeks. Editor was also very helpful. Very fast. [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors is only lightly moderated and preserves posters' anonymity. Not a r, Contribution: Single country Sample and OLS production, International Review of Law and Economics, very helpful comments which improved the quality of the paper; time between resubmit and acceptance: 6 days! One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. 1 reject and 1 R&R. The other is constructive but not as good. The editor handling the paper had no idea about the literature. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. Great judgment. (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?). Editor (Reis) worked hard on paper to make it better. Both referees suggested papers to be cited in the literature review, which seem like their own papers. Candidate Job Market Roster: Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. Second was uninformative. One good report (weak r&r). The revised submission was accepted within a month. Useful comments from the editor (Stefan Nagel). Desk rejected in 6 days with no explanation. 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. Editor was really nice. Editor was fair, his decision was understandble, but 6 months is clearly too long. Editor does not even both to check referee letter. Apart from long waiting time (editor part of the old guard at JPE), positive experience. So they had no idea about basic econometrics. Excellent ref report. Suggested to send to another journal! The other one, who wanted extra revises, was a bit of stupid. Fast response. Not to say, the shortcoming is an accepted norm till one finds a better way. The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. Would submit again. editor is dumber than a second coat of paint. The editor read the paper carefully and made helpful comments. Referee said he just didn't like the paper. Form letter. Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA)Berkeley - USA, Director of Economics and Data The paper was "with the editor". The former editors at the penn state just issued reject to relieve their editorial jobs. At the end, I got two reports; one helpful, the other garbage. Two reports of middling quality. No reimburment of submission fee ($130). very good ref reports. Will not consider again. Reports were okay but in the end not that helpful. Suggested field journal. Quickly accepted after the revisions were completed. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. Horrible experience. 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. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. First response was very good (and positive), still there was a long waiting afterwards. Super efficient handling by Prof. Sarte. I expected something more serious from a journal with such a high submission fee. Avoid this journal by any means. 2 Weeks. Comments didn't make sense. Referee rejected but with very exhaustive and interesting comments, only one report, but it was fair and can help me to improve the paper, Reports are thoughtful and useful for revisions, it took them 11 months to reject with one referee report of about half a page. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. 84 W Santa Clara Street, Suite 770, San Jose, CA 95113. Old fashined. Second decision took 2.5 months. Very nice editor. Yep, it is. The decision is quite fair and briefly justified. 2/2 referee reports were positive and suggested R&R because the contribution was significant enough. 1: 1: We have moved! OK comments from referee. 2nd very short and useless, referee probably spent 10 mins on it. Just that paper did not meet the bar. One positive (R&R) and other two had valid concerns I could have clarified better ex-ante. Excellent Editorial Comments. Would try again in the future. Not really a complaint though as there is no submission fee and the process was timely. Seems to be a fair process, 13 months for editor to desk reject because the paper has no empirical section, One good report, very constructive, the other one rejecting the paper. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO) Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. Very clear referee report with constructive comments. Received two detailed reports, which were reasonably useful. Assistant Professor, Macroeconomics. Very reputable journal with fast response policy which is good for authors: desk rejection in weeks, referee rejection in 2-3 months (usually). The editor (Mallick) gave us some additional advice and was ok with the result. A waste of 250$ and time. 1 very useful report and associate editor comments. The other reviewer raised some minor issues. Desk rejection in one week. Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. The journal is likely to go up again. Two referee reports, each was half a page with very general comments about the lack of contribution to a general readership. Very good reports that help us to improve the paper a lot. I am not in a club, whatever it is.). Mean and non-sense comments from one referee so that the editor had to apologize. Couple of comments why the paper does not fit (relatively reasonable). The referees and the editor took ridic, Editor: Heckman; high quality reports, two of the reports were helpful and constructive. Decent experience; overall fast, fair and constructive. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. Journal of the European Economic Association. it ?could ?be ?the ?case ?that ?I ?have? Fair and useful comment by the editor. no comments given. 3 reports. Editor was Barro. The referee seems like a first year PhD student who struggled with the notion of left tails. Got published after three rounds. Apparently the assigned coeditor left and paper got stuck. Reports detailed and helpful. Editor read paper and gave good comments, but ultimately rejected. Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. Very good experience. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, excellent experience. Rejection based on technical point, which could be fixed withing 2 weeks. Would try again. Paper was poorly read by the referees. Great experience. It was very smooth. The editor said that enjoyed the paper very much but the contributon is not sufficiently broad for a general interest journal as JHR and fits better into a labour journal. A lot to revise, but editor gave only 2 months. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Referee reports OK. cannot complaint about reports but could have been faster, bad reports, of the type "i don't like it". Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! 3 weeks for a desk reject. Fair enough. Initial response slow, then extremely quick after R&R. I withdrew the paper. 4 months for a desk rejection, frustratingly slow. Waste of submission fee. Really unprofessional. Paid $100 to read "that the Journal of Public Economics can only accept about 10 percent of the submissions for publication. Very negative experience. 2 weeks to desk reject. Very helpful comments. Stay away! Saying that the topic is not general enough. Failed to notify me of rejection. Editor read and carefully considered the paper. Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. I suspect either grad students or people outside of the field. 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. Fast response from the Editor. 2 years and counting, for a small paper. Helpful editor. Desk rejection based on lack of fit, altough there were at least 4 papers published on the same topic in previous years. No evidence anyone read the paper, even though they probably have the highest submission fee among econ journals. Learn More About Katia. Too narrow-minded editor. Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. Good experience with helpful AE and reviewer. Will submit again. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. We'll see. Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. the job market for junior economists. Referee reports were quite helpful in refining the paper. great experience. The editor, Gideon Saar, was lazy and did not read the paper. BTW, "Under review" all the time during the reviewing process, similar to AEA journals (but different from some other journals using manuscript central). That sounds fair to me. Sometimes Batten took a long time to make a decision after the reviews were completed, but he was fair. One report only, not very helpful, relatively slow for just one report. Do not waste your time with this journal. Suggested AEJ:AE, RESTAT and top field. Editor suggested JIE. The model is not presented in a clear and intelligible way. 0/10 would recommend. One great, very helpful report; one report that made an honest effort, but wasn't useful; one report that was one paragraph long and littered with spelling mistakes. Letter from the editor not so much informative. Desk reject in a few days. They have not released it, sorry. Professional and useful oversall. There were 2 rounds of revision after which the reviewers validated the manuscript. Desk reject after 30 hours, helpful comments from the editor. He even signed the letter. Desk reject in 1 week. Considering withdrawing. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Costas Meghir responses all submissions. game (can anyone confirm this?)? Also a very kind editorial letter. Paper got desk rejected. It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. 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. Letters from the Editor was nice. Rejected. Extremely efficient process with good comments by referees. Good experience overall, took more than 1 year to get one referee report. referees appear to understand the area. Very bad experience. Suggested changes and several other outlets. Some reasons given. Good referee reports. The reports are also very helpful. Overall good experience. However, I regret to say that it is a bit tangential to the main focus of our journal, and we are not able to offer publication". Very impressed with comments received by the co-editor (Mark Armstrong), which were more substantive than the reviewers. Giles is a great editor. Shameless people. Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. 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. After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. 2 shortish referee reports one fairly positive the other fairly negative, editor decided to reject based on lack of originality. writing? I understand there is variability in this process, but it was a terrible experience. Some good comments though. Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. Average time between rounds of R&R (months), EJMR | Job Market | Candidates | Conferences | Journals | Night Mode | Privacy | Contact. I read on EJMR how clubby and unfortunately British this journal is, but never expected it to be true. 19 Jun 2023. 3 months for a desk rejection - no need to comment 4 months until desk reject. Excellent comments from MN, good experience for a desk rejection. Submission to a special issue. Highly recommended. Quick-ish, 10 weeks. The results just didn't fit their priors. All suggest major revision and change of approach. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. 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). Referee really helped me to improve this paper with a great report. Referees rejected. Standard comments, paper's topic just not good enough. I am happy with the outcome. Incredibly fast review process, on this occasion. Fair process overall. One furstrating assertion by the editor. One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. Not helpful in any way. Fast turn around. awful reportreferee asked "why is this a problem?". Worst experience ever. Good experience and good editorial team. Some fair comments which are already addressed in the paper but no one paid attention to that Quick and reasonable. Initial review was slow but there was an editor change that may have contributed to this. Your paper is not fit for public choice try with public economics. Desk rejected in a few days. Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud. Two useful reports (one with detailed but helpful suggestions), good editor. Solid referee report and very quick response. Nice letter. Dual submission to a conference, the submission fee is quite high. Good experience. Took 3 month for a simple "out of scope" notification!! Think one more time before sending here. Referee was sharp, thoughtful, and thorough. Reasonable response. Revisions done in another two months and sent back to referees. . 14 days. Ex: CDF was derived to construct the likelihood of a discrete choice model, a reviewer writes the author does not use the derived CDF. Maybe small sample made it untouchable? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Great experience - referee and editor very helpful. The other report was *atrocious*. Over half a year for response from one referee who a) had no problems with the methodology, b) liked the writing, and c) thought it had a novel contribution. useless comments from editor. Very good experience. The paper would be a good fit. It took 1 year from submission to acceptance, but the journal was quick, I took to long to do the revisions. Very good experience, Good experience. 5 months for one low-quality referee report. The Graduate School of Business at Columbia University is seeking to hire one or more tenure-track faculty members in the area of economics, including those in macroeconomics, open economy macroeconomics, or macroeconomic aspects of international trade, applied microeconomics, organizational economics, industrial organization, behavioral . Very slow, 4 months waiting of the revise and resubmit, it's now two months since I submitted in and no word. Good experience overall. Go report in 2 days. The worst experience I ever had in over 20 years. Despite being so tough, all comments were fair and refs wrote great reports that dramatically improved the paper. Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. Market Design; Organizational Economics; Personnel Economics; Race and Stratification in the Economy; Risks of Financial Institutions ; Urban Economics; . re?write ?the ?paper ?with ?the ?help ?of ?some one? Suggested top field (JPubE in our case). Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. Overall, great experience despite the negative outcome, The WORST experience of my rather long life. Special issue editor started to referee himself. Poor referee reports. Reviewers gave substantive comments and significantly improved the paper. Poor quality single report. 2 fairly helpful reports. Reviews not very helpful as it seems like psychologists reviewed it. Name Department Contact Subfield . One good and two useless reports. 7 months waiting for one poor referee report rejecting the paper for an unwarranted wording issue. 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. A Doctorate level degree in Economics or related fields, or expect to receive it in 2023 with strong background in empirical analysis and policy-focused research. They raised concerns that very literally addressed in section heads. Overall fair process. Rejected by an Associate Editor, who actually read the paper, got the main idea clearly, and wrote a 2 full-page report with reasoning why this is not for JET and what journal outlets might be considered. It is not clear why the referee does not like the paper but it is clear he does not need 5 months for such a report. Massive work. Not enough novelty. Disappointed. Accepted after two rounds. no submission fee but fast response and fair referee report.