Dest rejected in three days. Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. I love this journal. I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. However, they want to reject whatever you want. Editor efficient, but strange experience: Two referees were very favorable, but the third referee rejected by quoting a "flaw" which was in fact correct. I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. Third round (acceptance) took 2 weeks. your paper, after some updating to reflect the recent complementary literature, would be more appropriate for a more specialized journal. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff. Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. Do not waste your time with this journal. Very helpful referee reports. Awful experience. Decision by editor (Mark Taylor): minor revision and resubmit. So, I "told mother", and she was like "What is Edge-mer? Said the contribution was too small, which I accept. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. Please add AERi to the combo box. 3 weeks. 1 was more positive and ref. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. Great experience. Editor cites two but only sends one. It took almost two month for a desk reject. 1 week: nice, but no fit with general interest. Very good experience, Good experience. I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided. Contacting the editor twice did not result in speeding up the process (but we received at least a reply). The contributions are very thoroughly detailed in the introduction, ie, the referee had to read around 3 pages and took him/her 6 months to do so. Extremely efficient. Got a rejection within a couple of days without any constructive comment. The Editor is regular contributor to that mistake and provided non-sensical rejection. 1 good, 1 okay and one bad review. The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made. Wilson inform me, on average, EI first decision is in 67 days, but my six months delay is not due to neglect (YEAH RIGHT! Referee reject without any comments after 14 months of chasing the journal. Unhelpful, rambling. four reports. The associate Editor Ali Kutan has rejected the paper. Nice communication with the Editor, but the referre report was terse with only one and brief idea. 6 months for useless reports. Very efficient process. Quick response. Very bad experience. Took way to long for three one page poor quality reports. 16 hour turnaround with nice letter of thoughtful comments suggesting more specialized journal. Horrible treatment. Despite perceptions they do desk reject. Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. Editor didn't read the paper, based her decision on reports. Took a little over a month for the desk reject and no refunds. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. Good experience, Revision accepted by editor within two days after re-submission. One very good referee report, one useless one. Note: previous desk rejected paper there was published in a much better journal. Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations, two reports, comments not always very clear on what was wanted but still helpful. Very good experience. Desk reject in a week. Very professionalthe referee reports were fine but rather tough given the quality of the journal, 3 rounds, all comments addressed, rejected because 1 reviewer did not read the last version. Excellent ref report. Vastly improved the paper but had to submit elsewhere. Recommend trying better journal. Extremely outdated econometric "suggestions" and an overall lack of understanding. Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda. No progress in six months although I send emails to push. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting Decision based on 1 one-paragraph review that didn't refer to anything specific in the paper. Good experience overall. Two excellent (and supportive) referee reports. Very good comments from both the reviewers and editors. Good comments from 2 referees, the other did not appear to have read the paper well. Referee report useless. Editor rejected because paper topic (public finance) is not what tey are currently looking for. The referee report was more appropriate for R&R. The other without serious suggestions. Disappointing. Made paper better. Very quick response. Desk reject within 14 hours(!!!). The time was not long (bit less than 10 weeks), the outcome was what is normal in this profession (Referee rejection). Will submit here again definitely but hate Elsevier so much. Invited to revise and resubmit the paper. The editor, one AE and some referees (in the first stage there was only one, completely irrelevant) have insulted my intelligence. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. Comments were helpful. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. Suggested Ecological Economics. desk reject in 2.5 hrs? Editor suggested JIE. 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. Yep, it is. Two referee reports and one report from the associate editor. Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit. Will definitely send again. Would never submit anything to these people again and would never recommend to anyone else either. I regret to inform you that we do not consider this work to be of sufficient interest to our readership to warrant publication. Editor seemed to have liked the paper despite ref rejection. It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Good reviews by the referee and the AE. They all got published in other journals and a book. After two weeks we got a desk rejection with a very impersonal letter which made us think that the editor did not even read the intro. Smooth process. Good experience. Good experience, Referees on the fence, rejection because editor does not like topic. Pretty average speed compared to other journals. Doesn't seem it was read beyond the title. 2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. 2 fairly helpful reports. He even signed the letter. The discussant in the shitty conf gives better comments. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Surprised at how quickly all went. Initial demanding R&R. Hello! 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). 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 . The editor received the report within a month. Editor highly incompetent. so,? . He suggests AER Insights and top field journals. To avoid. Editor rejected, but I have a feeling that both refs recommended R&R for different reasons. Referred to field, seems editor at least scanned and maybe even read the whole thing. In short, he left us only one option: not to resubmit. 2 Reports. DK carefully read and gave constructive feedback. Constructive referee report; said needed more robustness checks, but difficult in word limit. desk reject after 9 days - reason: editor feels not suitable for publication. The editor was quick and helpful. Never submit to this journal again. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee. Tough but fair referee reports. Tone of the reports harsher than at better journals. The referees responded very quickly and with excellent, high quality reports. Two referees were lukewarm but couldn't really point out too much that was wrong. Editor skimmed it at best and decided to reject without comments. Decent reports, rejecting for fair reasons. Just one referee report. Very professional editors. A bit long but very helpful referee report. faculty) positions. Editor was insufficient in evaluating our paper and rejected it due to a paper cited in the reference list! Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. paper is short so 6 months for each round is very long. Desk reject after 3 days. The paper was accepted after the first round revision. Good experience. Would submit again. But the comments helped. Although the referee comments were in detail some of them were really out of the scope. I suspect either grad students or people outside of the field. Rejected for not significant enough contribution. Under two month for two reports. Would not hesitate to submit to this journal in the future. Brief comment from the editor. Three mediocre reports. complimentary with some comments but said focus was too narrow, Good feedback from eitor, very quick desk reject. The three reviewers really went through the proof, I was a little impressed by their comments. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Good comments, helped improve the paper. Received first reply after 7 weeks. Nice editor message. 11 months for a rejection. Good referee reports. Editor overturned referee's decisions with poor justification. One useful report, the other poor. Total 6 months. The referee also pretended that I did not develop a two-sided hypothesis (comment like "why didn't the author think of this? A true scholar and a gentleman. Referee had positive comments and suggested revise and resubmit, but editor rejected it. Editor Bruce Hollingsworth suggested an alternative journal. Bad experience, waste of money and time. Okay experience overall, 3 weeks for a two sentence desk rejection which suggested submitting to a more specialist journal, Overall good experience. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. Nice experience despite a rejection. Quite good reports and sufficiently fast process. Editor didn't believe our identification. Time to accept less than 1 year. There is only one report called review number 2! Fair editor. Don't submit here. No reply to my e-mail. more months, before rejection based on superficial comments. In terms of rejections this is probably as good as it gets. After seven month the co-editor rejects the paper based on a report which is terrible. (Shouldn't these cases be desk-rejected instead of being rejected after 6 months?). Fast response and quality report made me satisfied even though I got a fast rejection. Under 2 weeks for a desk reject. Article was rejected but the comments were generally helpful and thoughtful. Referee #1 wrote 1 sentence saying to submit it to AER. One absolutely incompetent referee. Two helpful referee reports. After resubmission, I was informed that the paper would be sent to another editor (Prof. Mallick). Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. Wonderful experience overall. One week desk rejection with form letter. 3 sentences total, six months. Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. Would submit again. A black bitch barks at East Europe. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Constructive and very detailed referee comments improved the paper. Two rounds of review. Submission fee refund. Short unhelpful referee reports which ask to cite referees. One of them was very detailed. Extensive reviews though. At least they are faster than their reputation. Much quicker response than suggestsed. Both reports very helpful, AE comments showed that he did not understand the paper. Very fast. Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. Slow but good experience overall. After revision was done the AE decided to reject without sending to referees! Fair points by referees. 5 months, disappointing experience. I have no clue who the referee wanted to impress, maybe the editor? Two years for such outcome. Kohlhase). The model is not in AE's taste. That sounds fair to me. Editor do not reply to any query. Editor was respectful and not full of himself. Job Market Candidates 2022 - New York University Both referees were a bit too negative, but the reports were useful. Four months for a desk reject! Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. Monica Singhal handled the submission within a bit less than 2 months, and takes time to give a detailed opinion on the paper, impresive! Suggested field journal. The comments were not helpful, but at least I know that the editor has a strong bias towards the method. No input from editor either. Two weak reports. One paragraph with comments. Recommended rejection. 1 positive and 1 negative report - Editor rejected. Courteous notes from editor&co-editors when first response was delayed. Besides, the editor's messages were rude. The closures follow the consequences of the 2020 BLM-Antifa riots that . Editor recommended to submit to other journals. My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. Overall decent and professional expert reports. referee is very fast. 2 reports and 2 rounds. Good referee reports about key aspects of the research question framing and relevance. not the fastest experience, but high quality comments from referees and the editor who liked the paper. His reports were completely crap. Nice words from Editor. Not a good experience. Not only is it accepted, but it also becomes a much better paper now. Very inefficient handling process. Good handling by the editor. Suggested a more specialized journal. Very efficient journal. Not general interest. Lots of puffed up explanation marks and faux outrage. But at least fast. fluent ?in? Process ended after 1 report. Great experience. This journal is a bit hell to make it attractive to authors in order to get their money easily. ", Bad experience: six months to get one report plus a decision letter that looked like a desk rejection (which is ok, but not after 6 months). A bit long for a short paper, comments were fair and detailed although they pointed the way to an R&R rather than rejection. very good and fair comments in a short time, Two good reports plus some comments from editor. 4 months for a desk rejection based on what it appears to be a very superficial reading of the abstract. E Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; F3 International Finance; F4 Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance; Banco de la Republica, the Colombian central bank, is interested in hiring a new or experienced Ph.D. economists to work as a researcher/economist.. Submitted in 2014. Low quality comments from Frank Sloan. Took 6 months for first reply (ref reject); 1 referee critical but fair, the other one very critical but didn't read the paper carefully. It is a disgrace to the profession reflects poorly on the journal. Actually a nice experience. I spent less time and less effort revising 30 pages papers in other similar ranked journals than in EL, Excellent process and editor provided useful comments and guidance, Very pleasant experience very quick and the report professional. Overall great experience. 7 weeks. Shame on you, AE. One good referee, one ok, one terrible. I will never submit there again, Excellent and constructive reports. The most idiotic referees I've ever seen. Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. Super fast and clear feedback. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. main message was that paper is a poor fit. The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress. American Economic Association Commented that something we are doing is not correct, while all the papers in the field are doing the same. Great experience. One reviewer seemed to think a clean accept, one was 'not really convinced'. 1 months for desk reject. Two rounds of R&R! Full refund. Very efficient indeed!!!!!!! Rejected after 2 weeks. "We are hesitant to publish purely empirical papers" comment could have been boilerplate but seemed uninformative, Exceptionally quick turnaround times. Currently in R&R. editor very helpful. Good to be fast, but quality of feedback should be taken care of more at this journal. Worst experience so far in my career. Good report from reviewers. Report from the Editor. One positive and two negative reports. Desk rejected in 1 week. HUMAN HELP: The Placement Chair for the 2022-2023 academic year is Professor Ben Handel, handel@berkeley.edu. Conveyed no sense at all that anyone even looked at the paper. Economics Job Market Rumors - Forum for Economists Referee reports complete crap. Outcome was fair and reports well done, but waiting time was unacceptable and the editor's lettere extremely poor. Very easy suggested an appropriate transfer and levied the submission fees, with editor providing quite helpful comments. Ref reports were okay. Fast and very competent review. FYI: Your editor sucks). Some interesting comments, but not much. Good experience. Desk rejected in less than a week. Terrible editor. Fast turnaround, I'm very happy with the experience. Would submit again. Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. The other referee was serious however. The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. Useful comments from knowledgeable reviewers. A very good experience. Journal is basically a scam now. Will submit again in the future! I want to express my thankness to a refreee, who provded an exremly high quality report. Good experience. Post an advertisement. Editor had a "confidential" report that he wouldn't share, and on the basis of that chose rejection. did not refund the submission fee. Two are helpful, one is less useful. Revision accepted for publication in one week. And mentioned class struggle. Editor acted as 4th referee once referees were satisfied. Good comments from refs that really helped the paper. Minor comments from editor who appears to have at least gotten the gist of the paper. It details the following: Preparing to go on the job market. Would definitely submit here again. Helpful editor. Lost more than 6 months for nothing. Taiwan was born in Wuhan. Overall, pretty speedy given my submission coincided with end of year grading season and winter holidays in the US. Split recommendations, editor decided to reject which is fair enough. Decent reports highlighting different issues, mostly sympathetic, but tough. Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. A stronger editor could have handled the submission more efficiently also pointing out the weakness of the 2nd report. Empirical results didn't match their political priors so recommended rejection. One very good referee report, based on which the paper is improved significantly. 3 constructive and useful reports. Very quick response from Larry Katz. 2 months to R&R, revisions accepted by editor about a week after re-submission. Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. Almost happy. Some unfair comments about replicating what other papers have done (which are already discussed in the paper!) Fast decision after resubmit. totally useless editor. If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not). AE recommended other journals. Desk reject after 27 days by Kurt Mitman. Referees rejected. One of the best run journals in macro. Desk/ref rejected. Advisors: Raquel Fernndez, Martin Rotemberg, Elena Manresa. Very helpful referee report. Revise and Resubmit. Fast and friendly. One told me I should have use the methodology introduced by XPTO et al, which was the one I used and cited Only worthy comment was the editors who stated (and rightly so) that though our model statistically improved forecasts. After 7 months of waiting. A short piece from an expert in the field. Second round was down to one ref and editor, third round was just editor. Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small). Somehow it took a whole year for the referees to write short and horribly useless reports which show they did not even bother to read the introduction. Graduate Advisors. Poor referee. NEVER submit there if you are pre-tenured. Special fast-track call. Could have been more lucky with referees, but at least it was very efficient. Both read, understood and gave a few comments. I am making revisions. Desk Reject in a Week but it did come with two pages of notes and questions that should help the paper. Very quick process. Initial response slow, then extremely quick after R&R. Surprisingly efficient process given the other comments here on the journal. Katz rejected in two hours with comments that seemed to be written for some other paper. EER to toilet, the editors are clueless. AE recommended another journal. Reject and resubmit although both referees and AE advised revision. SVAT is a full service firm in the areas of bookkeeping, accounting, tax and small . Suggested field journal. 1 positive and 1 negative report.
Trigram Education Partners,
Jail Release Type Codes,
Bamboohr Postman Collection,
Do I Gossip Too Much Penny Hogwarts,
Rebels Basic Training Event Tier 3 Step By Step,
Articles E