6 weeks for a desk reject w/o any explanation. Form-letter rejection. Took a long time for first response which suggested feasible changes and asked for a revised submission. Not a fit to the journal! Referees lukewarm, Foster took time and effort to explain his decision, also indicated a number of pathways to strengthen 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). Bad experience. Referees asked for reasonable stuff. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Two weeks and they not assigned a manuscript ID number. Will not consider it again. Editor was polite. 1 positive and 1 negative report. Good editor. Basically, just a short e-mail saying that it cannot be accepted and it is more suited to some other types of Journals. Good experience, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. Answer in 24h. In print a couple of weeks later. The second one is ok, but rejects for some peculiar reasons. Rejected after 2 weeks. Editor did seem to have read the paper, possibly in more detail than the referee who comments several thing that was included in paper. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. We got RR and referee reports 4 moths after submission, then it took 5 months to acceptance. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. End of story. Came back with a reject, but reports were at least somewhat useful. Two helpful referee reports. Stay away! Yes, last week. Good handling by the editor. Referee reports were very brief and contained little in the way of substantive comments. Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. Took 3 rounds for editor to realize terrible referee was a crackpot. Editor gives no justification whatsoever. Took 7 months to get one referee report. But overall very very slow process. It seems to me that the editor rejected based on how well the article was written, rather than the substance of the work. Quick response. One few sentence report after 5 month. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. 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. The senior is useless as s/he was not happy that the paper is against an established theory. The AE's letter was useful, although no suggestion what to try next. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. They all got published in other journals and a book. Shame on you, AE. Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. Clearly no effort was put into it. Nice rejection letter. Very low process. Very efficient. Good experience. Both reviews helpful - one very extensive. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. Horrible associate editor, Arkolakis, rejected based on his personal views. Contribution not general enough suggests Review of Economics and Statistics. Avoid at all costs.. Constructive and very specific. Note that some areas need filling in with actual pages. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. Referee was constructive and provided helpful comments. 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. The Editor is regular contributor to that mistake and provided non-sensical rejection. Massive waste of time and money. The second time I was told that my results were "not surprising". Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. Complained. Old fashined. Editor noted that paper of an associate editor was not cited but did not mention the name of the paper. Maybe paper is not good enough, but the "report" was not convincing either. At least they are quick! Controversial journal. Reasonable response. 2 months for decision from being notified that "reviews received" and one of the referee reports was dated 7 months ago. Friendly referee with clear remarks. Easy Process. Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. 2 years and counting, for a small paper. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. Very poor quality referee report after waiting for more than 7 months. Galor and the referees felt the contribution wasn't substantial enough. Apply for Market Access Asia region manager job with HPE in Taipei, Taipei City, 11568. The editor wrote the 2nd report. Overall horrifying experience. Good experience. The paper was accepted after I incorporated all suggestions in R&R. Rogerson very quickly pointed out the paper did not merit publication. Obviously an inevitably subjective decision, but given this, the handling was very fair. fast turnaround. However, he referred to incorrect and minor points made by the referees. Unfortunately the paper is rejected but I hope the reports help you improve the paper for another journal. Overall, the reports were good so no complains. Not helpful in any way. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a papers contribution. The review process yielded good referee reports in round 1. The report had a few good notes but none that really seemed to disqualify the paper from getting an R&R. Rejection based on technical point, which could be fixed withing 2 weeks. In doubt, Spier decided to reject the paper. Thank goodness that there are more journals in health economics started. However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. This decision is not in any sense a negative comment on the quality of the paper. Fair enough. The paper was not a good fit for the journal and another journal was recommended. The editor provided one. Contribution too small. Secodn editor waited almost 6 weeks after receiving the referee reports. Minor comments from editor who appears to have at least gotten the gist of the paper. Main reason for this is that they assigned a different associate editor on the second round which I find highly unusual. Very helpful referee reports. Desk reject for paper being too narrow for the audience of the journal. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Great experience - referee and editor very helpful. Chiara Paz and Alice Wang. Fast response within one week. The referee did not read the first sentence of the paper and was not familiar with the literature. Crappy journal with crappy editor. The editor Mark Taylor accepted the paper after one day of the last re-submission. Referee told to write another paper instead. I have no problem receiving a desk-reject, but the stated reasons show no understanding of our research. Not sure why we didn't get desk rejected. Name Department Contact Subfield . Two decent referee reports. Two referees made great reviews and very detailed comments. But we are still hopeful. The initial resposen took too long (almost 4 moth to be sent our to referees). We regularly reject without referees the majority of all papers submitted to the QJE. almost useless and the editor is too slow. Unbelieveble how fast some journals work!!!!! The status has been "Pending Editor Triage" for 10 months. Got desk reject within 2 weeks. The referee had a chip on their shoulder and the editor stepped in. reports. Duh, Very helpful response from editor giving specific reasons that the manuscript would not be sent to referees, Thanks for your joining the Society, by the way, we don't think your historical paper with brand new historical data is right for a history journal. 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. Still, I have to contact them again after 9 weeks because they did nothing with my paper. The editor (Sushanta Mallick) rejected it by 'just by looking at the descriptive statistics' (the original words from the decision letter). the referee report adds nothing, and the editor rejects based on the meaningless report. Very good experience. Two horribly low quality reports. Submitted the paper 11:45. Really bad experience (Midrigan was the editor). The referee was ideologically opposed to our paper more than anything else. Had to withdraw after ten months of waiting. would? Decent referee reports. He suspects he could not understand a yota. Two short referee reports straight to the point. Chat (0) Conferences. Referee's comment was useful but contained too many extensions. Fairly quick acceptance. 3 months (!) Editor suggested that paper was better suited for JDE (LOL). The paper was accepted quickly after revision. One positive report, one negative. Desk rejected after 3 days from Shleifer. Terrible referee did not understand LATE and simply could not be satisfied. Just one very low quality report. One referee report excellent. overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness. Largely fair points. Never would have won that person over. rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report. Shockingly low quality reports that were nearly identical. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy, Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript. Tough referee process, won over 3, 4th still had doubts but Editor pushed ahead. Fair process and good report. Editor admitted haven't read the paper. Good experience! Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. Finance Job Rumors (489,486) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,772) Micro Job Rumors (15,235) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,012) China Job Market (103,527) Industry Rumors (40,348) Submitted July 2012, short empirical paper, still waiting for first response. The second one is more critical and seems to be angry by the fact that I'm not citing his work. Terrible experience - slow and unjustified decision. Editor seemed to have liked the paper despite ref rejection. Good reports. 18 days, no indication that either adstract or paper was read. Most efficient experience with journals ever! The associate editor however provided some useful comments which helped us improve the paper. Appreciate quick reject. The report must have been farmed out to some grad student who couldn't write. The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it. Poorly managed editorial process. Overall I feel paper rejected because of third negative review. One brief report. Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Good report with relevant comments which will be useful if publication of this study is pursued further. The editor suggested an alternative outlet, which was where the paper eventually got published. Good to be fast, but quality of feedback should be taken care of more at this journal. All reports were useful and very demanding. The editor did not even get that the comments were wrong. extremely slow. Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. According to him one referee is in favor but the other is not. Recommended rejection. Resubmitted and then conditional accepted within a week. Poor. He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. The editor likes the idea, but things the method is not new, so recommended to a field journal. 1 very weak report, 1 very useful, AE's report extremely weak. Will submit again.. Fast editors. Very pleased. Good reports. Complete waste of time. Revisions done in another two months and sent back to referees. Editor didn't read the paper. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. The referee checked my citations and offered helpful comments. Would definitely recommend it even if it's a longshot. Extremely unprofessional. Brief comments from the editor. Desk rejected in 25 minutes. Board Threads Posts Last Post; Economics Job Market Threads. The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. You received a high fee, you explain at least one sentence about your decision making. Bugaga! After that Editor took 2 months to answer positively to my R&R. multiple rounds, one of round took about a year. Solid referee report and very quick response. Waiting for R&R results. Job Description Linkedin.com. https://wpcarey.asu.edu/economics-degrees/research-seminars-workshops, Hoy (World Bank), Cox (Yale), Toppeta (UCL), Prettnar (UCSB), Kang (Stony Brook), Abdulhadi (OSU), Sun (Penn State), Seyler (Laval), Neal (UNSW), Lin (UCLA), Huang (NYU), Zhang (Princeton), Beltekian (Nottingham), Jin (BU & CMU), Kumagai (Brown), Zhou (Chicago Postdoc), Chen (LISER & Tilburg), https://rse.anu.edu.au/seminars-events/all-seminars, Senior Economist or FSS Senior Analyst (2022-2023 PhD Job Market), Behavioral Economics, Experimental Economics, Assistant Professor, Business and Public Policy, Kapon (Princeton postdoc), Moscona (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Nord (EUI), Vergara (Berkeley), Wang (EUI), Ashtari (UCL), Sung (Columbia), Conwell (Yale), Carry (ENSAE), Song (USC), Thereze (Princeton), Banchio (Stanford GSB), Vitali (UCL), Wong (Columbia), Kang (Stanford GSB), Ba (UPenn), Durandard (Northwestern), Department of Social and Political Sciences, Zenobia T. Chan (Princeton), Xiaoyue Shan (Zurich), Germain Gauthier (CREST), Massimo Pulejo (NYU), Joan Martnez (Berkeley), Enrico Miglino (UCL), Assistant Professor of the Practice in Economics, Borghesan (Penn) Wagner (Harvard) Acquatella (Harvard) Vitali (UCL) Zahra Diop (Oxford) Bernhardt (Harvard), Boston University, Pardee School of Global Studies, Assistant Professor of International Economic Policy, Yeji Sung (Columbia), Joao Guerreiro(Northwestern), Seck (Harvard), Borusyak (UCL), Rexer (Wharton), College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University, Castro de Britto (Bocconi), Alfonsi (Berkeley), Miano (Harvard), Hazard (PSE), Uccioli (MIT), Brandimarti (Geneva), Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Mattia (Chicago), Applied Microeconomics, Business Economics, Hampole (Kellogg), Kwon (HBS), Morazzoni (UPF), Puri (MIT), Vasudevan (Yale), Wang (Stanford GSB), Pernoud (Stanford), Vats (Booth), Otero (UC Berkeley, hes accepted the Columbia GSB offer), Commonwealth University of Pennsylvania - Bloomsburg, Cong @Cornell is a free rider of people's research, Szerman(Princeton), Kohlhepp(UCLA), Contractor(Yale), Pauline Carry (CREST), Nimier-David (CREST), Lukas Nord (EUI), Philipp Wangner (TSE), Anna Vitali (UCL), Lucas Conwell (Yale University), Florencia Airaudo (Carlos III), Fernando Cirelli (NYU), Nils Lehr (Boston Univesrity), Sara Casella (University of Pennsylvania), Yehi Sung (Columbia University), Shihan Shen (UCLA), Federico Puglisi (Northwestern University), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Juan Manuel Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton University), Martin Souchier (Stanford), Benny Kleinman (Princeton Univerisity), Miano (Harvard), Ramazzotti (LSE), Miglino (UCL), Petracchi (Brown), Augias (Sciences Po), Uccioli (MIT), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Vattuone (Warwick), Yang (ANU), Mantovani (UPF), Ashtari Tafti (UCL), Colombo (Mannheim), Vocke (Innsbruck) (see here: shorturl.at/azHN1), Thereze (Princeton) Miller (Wharton) Matcham (LSE) van der Beck (EPFL) Casella (UPenn) Wang (Stanford GSB) Taburet (LSE) Pernoud (Stanford) Mittal (Columbia) Hampole (Kellogg).
Jacob Marley Character Analysis,
New England Wolves Roster 2021 2022,
Articles E