Never again. Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). I resubmitted in January, and the paper was accepted with minor revisions in March. fast turnaround. Despite the rejection, referees raised valid points that we can adress to improve our paper and provided a way forward. Desk rejected in 2 days. Obviously an inevitably subjective decision, but given this, the handling was very fair. The referee was ideologically opposed to our paper more than anything else. High quality, detailed ref. Two rounds of R&R. International Journal of Finance and Economics. It took the referees / editor 5 months to look at my revised script to then just accept it without any further comments. Felt somewhat subjective. Journal response was quick. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. Boo! said it was a matter of fit. Fast review process. One ok report, one poor. Very efficient. She said only 1 (very short but with no objections) of 3 of the referees responded and was not able to find new referees. Generic desk reject within 2 weeks. I am just not part of the club. Didn't really get a clear sense from the negative reports why they rejected. Very clear referee report with constructive comments. Post an advertisement. Suggested different journals, very efficient. Pretty well run, can't complain. DR after one week. One very good report. The policy of the journal is to let each author appoint the referees, which improves speed on one hand but generates citation groups on the other hand. Very bad reports from non economists. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. Contribution not new enough relative to the existing literature. Kind words by editor, though weird reasoning, nearly a month for an anonymous desk rejection. But I understand it may not have been a good fit. very efficient process and useful reports from editor and referess. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. 2 reports + report from AE which is a lot better than referee reports. Very useful comments. Development Economics, Family Economics, Gender Economics, Domestic Violence Durandard, Tho: Kellogg School of Management . ", 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). Editor mentioned the wrong econometric model in email making it clear it was not read. To be honest, I had a hard time understanding exactly what the point of your paper is. Editor argued I had observational data and no identification, hence instant rejection. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. I am not in a club, whatever it is.). Two high quality reports. Split decision. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. William A. Barnett is a very professional editor and reviews were helpful. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. One of the critics was not applicable, but the major critic was quite helpful. Three months. Journal: Utilities Policy (was not included as a journal to chose). See Alice Wu's paper for details. Good experience. 1 very helpful report. Timely, informed, and critical. Desk reject within 14 hours(!!!). Just thoroughly unprofessional report. Excellent reports. Chat (0) Conferences. Editor handled it well. Very useful referee reports. Very slow, 4 months waiting of the revise and resubmit, it's now two months since I submitted in and no word. Editor suggested top field, decided not to send to referrees due to "narrowness of topic." Two referees made great reviews and very detailed comments. Will never try it again. I wish my coauthors would not be too sad being rejected. The editor (Hongbin Li) rejects because of lack of fir with the journal's mission. Editor sat on completed reports for 2 months to give a two sentence rejection response. The co-editor gave very specific, though difficult requests for the revision. Job Market Paper: Local Polynomial Estimation of Time-Varying Parameters in GMM. 2 quality ref reports + brief comments by editor. Desk reject in 1 week. Initial review was slow but there was an editor change that may have contributed to this. Rejected on grounds of the paper not "establishing a new set of empirical facts that theory must confront" (Eric Leeper). To avoid. Relatively high submission fee. European Review of Agricultural Economics. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, O. Fair and useful comment by the editor. ", Took two months to desk reject, although initial email assured of a very short response time for desk rejecttions, Desk rejected because of formatting issue but invited to resubmit; took a few days for desk rejectioin. 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. Very efficient. 2 referee reports: 1 very detailed recommending revisions; other useless. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. It is run by "Kirk", [1] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. Helpful for resubmission somewhere else. One very good referee report out of three. Rather weird outcome but quite quick for a journal of its reputation. Waited a year for two low quality reports. 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. Poor referee. Long waiting for 10 months, send 3 emails to ask, reply: under review, some useful comments from ref despite recommending reject. Overall, very positive experience. Almost 4 weeks for desk rejection. Over 8 weeks for a desk reject due to poor fit for journal. Would submit here again. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). In the meantime they lied to me saying that it was out for review and that they were awaiting referee scores. The paper got rejected anyways. 2 weeks for desk reject. Solid referee report and very quick response. reports: 1 ridiculous, 1 useless, 1 useful, 6 months from initial submission to acceptance. After 12 months the paper was not even sent out to review or rejected despite 10 emails. Useless comments. But it does move my prior of affiliation doesnt matter, just the paper (yes, a prior that no one here seems to have). Unacceptable waiting time. The paper was a very good fit though. JEDC is well run. The negative one says there is no methodology novelty. good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. More than 16 weeks!! Ultimately, Editor rejected as felt it was not general purpose enough. 1 really excellent, positive report. No reimburment of submission fee ($130). So-so experience. 3rd round 1 month and then accepted. Good first round reports, took a while to respond to all the comments. It is probably not surprising that the editor simply failed to understand the theoretical model and the referees had zero understanding of the empirics. It is a very demanding R&R and we revise the paper a lot according to the suggestions, but it is worthwhile. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. Seems like being rejected in virtue of the magnificence of the journal. Passed the desk (Turner) in ten days. The first revision took around 5 months. No comments from the editor though. 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. Appreciate the quick turnaround. 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness. Two years later still waiting for referee reports. Paper very close to editor's (Rogerson) field of interest. Great judgment. All comments seem easy to answer. Very fast and fair process, despite the negative outcome. Suggested to send to another journal! Really smooth process. Incredibly fast review process, on this occasion. One seems to be written by a first-year bachelor student. Sounds fair. complimentary with some comments but said focus was too narrow, Good feedback from eitor, very quick desk reject. A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. writing? Referee #1 wrote 1 sentence saying to submit it to AER. Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. Will submit there in the future. The first round took too long (~10 months). After two rounds all the referee agreed to publish the paper. Grad student who manages inbox for ed took bad review at face value. Will not submit here again. Fast response. Very low process. True, no time wasted, just the $125 submission fee. The editor decided major revision. One report very solid and useful, another (two-paragraph one) looks confusing. Also gave a lengthy extension. Very quick response. The other was much more careful. Desk rejected after more than 5 months, avoid, International Review of Applied Economics, receive first response within 2 weeks. Paid $100 to read "that the Journal of Public Economics can only accept about 10 percent of the submissions for publication. 12 months and waiting. main message was that paper is a poor fit. Unfortunately paper was assigned to handling editor who was on study leave. I read on EJMR how clubby and unfortunately British this journal is, but never expected it to be true. The most thoughtful and detailed review I've ever had. Comments were helpful. Mildly positive referees but reject nonetheless. One ref suggested I send it to JPE before trying places like EJ or ReStat. 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) One good referee, one ok, one terrible. Submission is waste of time. The editor is incredible. Avoid if you can. Most of the refs did not read the paper, or only skimmed it. Both referees caught the major issue in the paper and offered great suggestions for moving forward. Super fast review. Bad Experience. Nothing happened. One reviewer was ok after the first R&R. Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. also received comments from the old reviewer that were better than the first review. Helpful reports, overall good experience. Although the suggested changes would have made the paper way too long for an EL pub. Editor Ian Walker gave us a fantastic referee report. At the time the editor had still the paper sitting on his desk. Worst experience I have ever had. Reports were very positive, it took us 12 weeks to resubmit. Rejected for not significant enough contribution. All are lengthy and constructive. The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it. Not a great experience! The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. Particularly, one of the referees seemed like he didn't read a single word past the intro. The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. The other review was somewhat on point in its criticism, though I can'r give him/her the credit as the shortcoming was itself mentioned in the paper. Poor comments, one paragraph each asking for minor changes but rejected. Reasonable referee report. He requested that we sent him a reminder after a week. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. Fast response time. Overall- great experience. Editor told us to what extent the comment should be addressed. Said the paper was to mathematical/econometrical for the journal. Fast turnaround and good comments. Referee was perceptive and pointed out serious flaws in the first draft. The other without serious suggestions. very good and fair comments in a short time, Two good reports plus some comments from editor. Fast editorial process. Disappointing experience. 2 weeks for a desk rejection, editor actually read the paper and commented on it before deciding it is more suited to a field journal. Editor offers insightful suggestions as well. Nice experience!!! The worst experience so far. Editor didn't read the paper, based her decision on reports. Submission refund. Both suggested rejection. Fair enough reasons why, but would have appreciated less time. Spent a week rewriting the paper according to requests of the editor ("put figures in the end of the paper" and such), then got a desk reject. Got accepted in three days. Decision was made in 45 days. Desk Rejected after 2 days. 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) I am an assistant professor at Universit de Montral. Clearly a club journal. Horioka the editor. Referee 1 happy with resubmission (no further comments), referee 2 suggested rejection or major rewriting. Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. Board Threads Posts Last Post; Economics Job Market Threads. Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. Referee makes a factually inaccurate claim about previous research, and misinterprets interaction terms. OK comments from referee. the revision requirements seem achievable. Deadline: 2023-03-06. Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. Desk reject after 2 months! Awful experience! Editor rejected within less than 10 days. JFM is bad! Desk rejected in 6 hours. Thorough review. nice letter from editor, good and fair comments, 1 ref report good. Two useful reports. Quick and professionsl process. Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. Second one didn't understand the paper and said it was already written. Very good reports. Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever. never submit to this journal again. Awful experience. 7 weeks. Desk rejected in two weeks. Good comments, made the paper better. thorough but not brutal enough - the paper was not very a contribution at all at the time and needed a much harsher rejection, seriously, referee reports were very thorough and demonstrated expertise, rejections were fair - just wish I would have gotten these reviewers the first time I submitted the paper. get first response in 28 days. 12.5 euro (exclusive of VAT) for each hour it sat with them. Pretty helpful reports. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Two good reports. Claudia Rae Sahm (ne Foster) is an American economist, leading the Macroeconomic Research initiative of the Jain Family Institute. The editor, not having confidence in the reports, decided to reject, I believe. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. 1 months for desk reject. The other reviewer I suspect of being a graduate student with not so good comments. High Quality Editing. Would send here again. Editor sent it to peer review in one day. I thought that I deserved more respect. Desk rejection after three days. Yet editor made some good comments. Short unhelpful referee reports which ask to cite referees. Ref rejected in 3 weeks. Homepage; 1 month for R&R, 1 week for acceptance after revision submitted. Very long wait. Waste of $100. Within a week with no justification. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Negative report is pretty bad. 2 months for decision from being notified that "reviews received" and one of the referee reports was dated 7 months ago. Overall, I was very pleased with the process. 1 very useful report and associate editor comments. 2 weeks for 2 high quality ref reports. Excellent editor, balanced referees and good timing. One referee waited for 182 days to submit his/her report as there was a time stamp on the report. Contribution too small. Terrible to treat junior people this way. 4.5 months to get the 1st-round comments, 2.5 months for 2nd round. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh, London, Manchester - UK, Predoctoral Fellow Two useful ref reports in the first round. Quick desk rejection. It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. Or rather, the editor is very lazy to follow up on the reports. Clear editor had read the paper, helpful comments. Very nice words from the editor but useless referee reports. Paper was a letter. Referees didn't read the article properly! desk reject by kahn in 48 hours. Zero constructive comments! Rejected after 1st R&R. 1 was very low quality -- couple of bullet points that made clear reviewer had not read paper. Editor gives no justification whatsoever. Two weak reports. Manuscript was withdrawn - editor had assigned referees within 3 months of submission but then these were apparently not forthcoming. Otrok rejected within 7 days; considerable comments on the paper, though the three major points are either just wrong or addressed (one of them prominently) in the introduction of the paper. Stay away from this journal if you do not have a connection from inside. Fast Review process. Very short and no relevant comments. In 1974, the Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) began printing a periodical, Job Openings for Economists (JOE) (Coles etal. The new editor (Leeat Yariv) did a great job: She indeed read the paper and gave constructive comments. 3 weeks to desk reject. No comment from the editor, 1 referee report by an idiot that just filled three pages with garbage to look like a better referee; other report was better but still not nearly as smart as QJE referees. Fast and friendly. Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. He clearly outlined the major flaws and decided to desk-reject it. Referees did not show good knowledge of the subject. I heard rumors they make desk rejections using bots, this one actually looks like it. Desk rejected in 14 days, just long enough to get hopes up, with boilerplate "not general interest.". Instead, she just re-sent me her rejection (from when she was a referee before). Katz rejected in two hours with comments that seemed to be written for some other paper. 2 rounds (1 major R and 1 minor R), one report each time, very fast acceptance after minor R round (less than a month), Fast and to the point reports with reasonable requests for r&r. A year after submission without result? Smooth process and manageable referee report. Outcome was positive in the end, but I had to follow some nonsense instructions from the referees and the editor. Of these, 90 graduates (72%) chose positions at academic institutions and 38 graduates (27%) chose non-academic . Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. The referee made also several nonsensical remarks about the methodology giving a signal that s/he hasnt thoroughly went through the paper. Might have been better if they said they hate the paper. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. Editor actually read the paper. One useless report, but the other one is decent. Enough said. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. The top 20% of women are chasing the top 1% of men. Very slow, but fair process overall.