9 month for two reports. Bad experience with both the referee reports and the editor, Single RR, Editor said couldn't find a second reviewer. 1 good report and 1 not so good. Lousy comments from the Editor in chief. Very unprofessional. Took a while, but great experience overall. 5 days, paper is too specific for QJE, Helpman suggested another journal. Second referee made some useful suggestions. Two careful reports with good feedback. Depressing experience. Referee comments generally useful and positive, but guest editor made desicsion to reject given preferences - fair enough really. But the decision was unfair. Good comments. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. STAY AWAY from this journal! 3 weeks to desk reject. One nice and one not nice referee. Might have been better if they said they hate the paper. Took 7 months to get one referee report. The editor barely read the paper and decided to just reject it At least it was quick response - 11 days. Was actually scared based off of runors I heard on this site. Why don't black people open carry and call it 2nd amendment rights? Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. The editor also read the paper and gave very good comments and suggestions. Considering withdrawing. I submitted two papers and both took a very long time to get referee comments from and the sets of referee comments read like they were written by undergraduate students. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. You received a high fee, you explain at least one sentence about your decision making. Placement Officers: Pete Klenow 650-725-2620 klenow@stanford.edu. Single report. Referee #1 wrote 1 sentence saying to submit it to AER. paper proposed theory that is quite a substantial departure, so i appreciate the editor's willing to take it on. is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? Decent reports, no complain. editor is dumber than a second coat of paint. 3 sentences total, six months. No indication that the paper was read. Editor gave a two sentence summary the paper, mentioned two additional recent articles from their journal that might be useful, and suggested an alternative journal. No reason provided, in line with the journal policy. Slow process (but exactly as advertised) and fair judgment. To view archived listings in this job market cycle that are now inactive, check this box View listings from the previous (August 1, 2022 - January 31, 2023) JOE cycle. She admitted having forgotten about it until 8 months later and sent us a rejection. The referees should be (far) better than the illiterate idiot they gave me! 1 Month from Submission to a very positive R&R. Suggested top field (JPubE in our case). Job Market. Form letter. Decision was made in 45 days. Editor from outside of the field (empirical corporate fin) did not think that my paper (ap theory) is interesting. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Good overall experience. Weak editor. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. Joke rejection but not unexpected from this team. Fast editors. Applied Economics was usually getting back to me in 6 months or even more, this time I had great experience. others ref reports okay. the? Other referee reports are okay, not very useful. Bad experience, there was a long wait of mroe than 10 months to get 2 referee reports that did not like the the paper (but not so sure why). Also useful comments from the editor. Referees mostly wanted me to provide more background and a deeper policy discussion. It also tries to give advice, but not really doable. Editor rejected within less than 10 days. Waiting for R&R results. Nice experience. Received first reply after 7 weeks. Harsh critical comments from the editor, a useful report from the referee. Two excellent (and supportive) referee reports. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. The referee acted as if I didn't cite and discuss papers mentioned in the report. Helpful and fair referee reports. My new favorite journal, Very clear instructions from editor for revision. Editor is bonkers, he said article was outside scope of journal.when it was clearly regiona/urban economics article. Robert J. Barro desk rejected the paper in less than 24 hours. Currently 20 months of waiting after first submission. Economic Theory Bulletin. One good report, the other one poor. Rejection came on Easter morning. 1 very good referee report, 1 OK, 1 pretty bad (revealing that the referee was clearly a non-economist). this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. Polite, even quite positive reports. One high quality report. This paper has just been accepted in a top transportation journal now. Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit. Horioka the editor. Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. Fasstest acceptation ever after R&R: 1 day! The editor decided to reject, I am not in the club. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. Katz rejected in less than 24 hours with some comments. Advisors: Raquel Fernndez, Martin Rotemberg, Elena Manresa. Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. Good communication and seemed very efficient. Chat (0) Conferences. Didn't even quite read the rewritten paper. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. Useful ref reports and helpful comments from co-editor. extremely long wait, and a really poor referee report. Passed the desk (Turner) in ten days. There are several claims that are either wrong or very poorly explained (e.g., a Nash equilibrium need not be Pareto optimal!). We got RR and referee reports 4 moths after submission, then it took 5 months to acceptance. Employers may also contact the students and their . Time to accept less than 1 year. Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. Rejection based on fit. The other referee was also good and liked the paper. I received my Ph.D. degree at the University of Chicago in 2022. Reject and resubmit. Very tough report on the first RR, extensive changes suggested, though all feasible and mostly all improved the quality of the paper. One referee gave very constructive comments, but referenced three papers by same person (I'm guess that's who referee was). the comment above was for another journals. Welcome to the EconTrack Job Market Information Board, a service hosted by the AEA. The contribution of the paper is not enough for EL! AE didn't provide comments which is odd. Editor decided to reject because he could only find one person to review. Very quick response. Useful reports and fast turnaround. I? two referee reports. This is why our profession sucks. All reports were useful and very demanding. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. Second round took 30 minutes, from submission to acceptance. My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. Incredible experience: one of the referee report told us that a working paper was published on almost the same subject (and justifies our rejection) but this working paper was published 5 months after our submission ! After doing what the, very stupid, referee asked he said "not a big enough contribution". Desk reject in 1 week. Editor provided detailed advice throughout the entire revision process. Paper desk rejected in 3 days. Reason cited: weak paper. Very kind letter from the editor. Submitted a really cool COVID-19 theory and emperical paper. He even signed the letter. 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. . Two referee reports; one high quality, one very low quality. Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small). (However, because there was only one referee, whose specialty aligned with only part of the paper, he/she barely attempted to comment on much of the paper, perhaps to its detriment.). Update to previous pending post. Paper desk rejected in 4 days. I suspect a tight club. Good turnaround time. 2 days to get a desk rejection. Resubmitted and the editor rejected the paper on the basis of concerns that were never raised before in the process (and are incorrect IMHO). had to withdraw, Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. Special fast-track call. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, excellent experience. Helpful comments from reviewer and editor. The International Review of Law and Economics has recently published the article "Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War" by J. 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. Report is in reasonable quality. Job Market. Next time, I will come back with a vip or friend of the editorial team to have positive a priori. Excellent, useful comments by editor, but report was not helpful (as correctly noted by editor) and 5.5 months is a long time for one report. Horrible! Stay away! 2 was more critical. After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. Very tough journal with very extensive comments from 3 refs. Desk rejected in 1 week. Welcome to the Academic Jobs Wiki. I had much better experience in American Journal of Health Economics. Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. Are you seriously so focusing on submission fees instead of research itself? ref report had useful but not overly comprehensive suggestions. Will never try it again. No referee reports. Review process was very efficient. The university is also very well-known for its intellectual atmosphere and abundance of creativ. Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. This referee made no specific comments. The editor handling the paper had no idea about the literature. Useful and encouraging comments from referees, who appeared very interested in improving the paper and offering helpful suggestions to do so. Long waiting for 10 months, send 3 emails to ask, reply: under review, some useful comments from ref despite recommending reject. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. Another 2 months and a second round of very minor revisions. Rather uninformative feedback: feeling that it is not suitable for publication and unlikely to be favorably reviewed. Quick turnaround upon revision. Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! One decent report. I will submit again. Overall experience is good. Great experience! 100 days for 2 useless reports showing lack of understanding of whats going on in the paper, Nice and quick, but bad experience. First reviewer excellent. desk rejection in 2 weeks. Hello! Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". Overall, good experience. Good experiences --- fast (1 month for both the first and R&R round), good reports, editor is also very helpful. I heard back really quickly with helpful comments. Excellent referee reports and detailed feedback from the editor on what to focus on and what to ignore. Useless experience. Overall, bad experience. Most efficient experience with journals ever! Way too slow though. On the downside, the time between each of the two rounds of R&R was longish. Average turnaround time was rather long for AEJ standards. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. Interviewing at the ASSA meetings. I will try in the future. Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. Reject due to the non-response by the referee. However, he suggested that I submit my paper to a theory journal. Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. Dual submission to a conference, the submission fee is quite high. Worthless garbage report, no redeeming value. Overall experience is horrible. Desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Reports were sound and improved the paper substantially. The other referee recommended revision. For a short paper, it took quite a longtime for deskreject without a single sentence relating to the paper. All three schools are exceptional but UChicago is particularly strong in Econ as well as other core subjects such as polisci and philosophy. Bit disappointing given the high fee. Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. 1 Month and 10 days for first decision is too long. Editor sat on completed reports for 3 months before making a decision. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Editor suggested that paper was better suited for JDE (LOL). all in all four years without ever seeing a referee report. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. Rapid desk rejection, with fair comments and advice from editor. The referee must be some leading scholar in the field and I just wanna say thanks to him/her. Nice words from Editor. Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. Good reports - detailed and constructive. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. Slightly more informative than a desk rejection. Good for knowing what people didn't like, but not clear how to improve. This particular group controlling urban economics now will not let any differing view go through AER and JUE. ", Fast response. Will submit again. Don't think they even bothered reading the first page. One very good report, the other OK. recommend ?that? Also, reviewers are non-economists, providing some real WTF comments. Good report from reviewers. 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. Not only is it accepted, but it also becomes a much better paper now. One excellent referee report, and one decent one. Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! Referee's only objection is flat out incorrect (i discussed report with colleagues in my field). Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. 1 was very low quality -- couple of bullet points that made clear reviewer had not read paper. Not for the faint-hearted. Might submit again, a little disappointed that they didn't try to get it reviewed. One very low quality. Two reports. 1 helpful report. The editor was quick and helpful. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Editor contributed with some helpful comments as well. Fast and kind desk rejection. within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Saying that the topic is not general enough. Nice experience, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. Comments were helpful. Oh well, on to the next journal. Single ref report had three very minor questions. One report was very constructive and helped improve the qualitiy of the paper. Desk rejected in 2 days with a very short report "better fit for a finance journal". Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. One referee said "take it", two said "we dislike coauthor, he published something similar in psych journal, do not take". My previous rejection there was north of 6 months One very low quality report, one very thorough report. Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. Desk reject in 1 week. reports. I am happy with the outcome. International Review of Financial Analysis. Bradshaw AdvisoryLondon/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds - UK. econjobrumors.com Top Marketing Channels. We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. Editor recommended to submit to other journals. The report I did get back (in the form of an email from the editor) was not very informative (referee claimed "expressing time series as deviations from trend does not produce a stationary time series". Odd journal but overall pleased with the result if not every part of the process. Initial response was quick. 1 very weak report, 1 very useful, AE's report extremely weak. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. In hindsight, submitted the paper too prematurely. I didn't know that JHR is a general interest journal! One short and one longer report. After 6 months I got three good reports. Editor admitted haven't read the paper. Got accepted after a week. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. It's time for the journal to kick out some unprofessional referees. Paper not anywhere close to editor's field of interest. Good experience. The paper was triying to test unit roots on capacity utilisation for a cross-section of countries to test some macro models; so it did stuff that even a Master's can understand. Hastily written by PhD student. Referees mixed. Awesome experience. 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. After "awaiting referee selection" for 4 months, I sent a query and got one referee report. Paper: "Regulating the Sharing Economy: A Study of Unlawful Providers". Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. OK report. If you don't have that - expect to be desk rejected. Stay away from JAE. The second one is ok, but rejects for some peculiar reasons. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list. Instead, the reviewer says you did not cite a literature that is totally beside the point, the main concept of your paper is not mentioned not even once in that literature. If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not). The editor-in-chief writes, "Although the question you address and your results are interesting, in my view the paper is a poor fit for GEB's readership..". Awfully slow for a desk reject, but at least the editor gave a couple of helpful comments and it was clear he'd read the paper with care. Very bad experience. Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. Editor says, "your paper poses only a very marginal contribution to the literature in theoretical economics. But at least fast. Very long process. Multiple inquiries with a response: "once the reviews are completed, the editor will make a decision". One of the best run journals in macro. desk reject, but editor basically provided a referee report, desk reject - generic letter from editor who did not like the topic. Editor decided to reject it. Got a form letter. +6 months for a desk rejection without a single comment. Reason - paper was too specialized. Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. Very quick. Highly recommended. The referee was clearly trying to protect his own paper on a related topic; half of the bullet points referred to that paper. Two reports -- one good (mostly cosmetic changes), one very short. Within a week, Laura Schechter clearly went through the paper and give it a thought with a couple of helpfull comments. Good points, though, and overall a good experience. Recommended reject because he thought the sample of countries wasn't broad enough (despite it being a paper on a specific set of countries on purpose, as explained in the methodology). Very good experience. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. Co-editor and one referee attacked the paper for something that the paper already explicitly adresses. Referee did not even sent a report after year and a half. In any case, the paper is not a good match for the JIE, both because it is highly technical and (more importantly) because it is more of a trade theory paper than an IO paper. Young is defined by the year of the first publication in any form. Took some time due to lots of things to revise, but all the requests were fair. Only one semi-informative report. Desk rejected within 3 days with idiotic comments, as usual. Second decision took 2.5 months. It than took the editor (Mark Watson) another 6 months to read reports and make a decision. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. Got published after three rounds. Good experience. They did not send an offer last year either. Taburet (LSE), Leombroni (Stanford), Puglisi (Northwestern), Wangner (TSE), Qiu (Pennsylvania), Morazzoni (UPF), Charles (USC), Hurtado (Chicago Booth), Nord (EUI), van der Beck (Lausanne), Monteiro (Northwestern), Gutierrez (Chicago), Senior Economist (Forecasting and Policy Modelling). AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. Some conflicting recomms that editor didn't address. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. Editor was great (helpful, insightful, truthful). Whole process super quick. 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. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!! Comments based entirely on abstract. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. Good comments, helped improve the paper. A bit long but very helpful referee report. The editor is responsive. Would choose again. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Close callEditor gave the benefit-of-a-doubt and requested revisions, one good referee, the other not very good, helpful editor, overall, pretty smooth process (always easier to say when the paper ends up being published). interesting and polite reports. Bad Experience. Contribution too small. Rejected within two weeks. The referee is clearly not up to the task. Under two month for two reports. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). Our results didn't change. Extremely slow journal and not well managed journal. One detailed report. One useful report, the other poor. submitted 4 years ago, got a response after nearly 2, resubmitted, now waiting more than a year for a result, editor not responsive to queries about the status, look elsewhere before soubmitting in the Economic Modelling, terrible experience, I am thinking about withdrawing. Editor reject due to relevance. Scam. 6 months after that paper online. Search by field of study. Not sure whether it should be called "desk rejection" as the editor said he asked a friend who is an expert in the field to review my paper rather than sending it to referees. Submitted August 14, 2015. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. Worst experience, A very very slow journal. Referee didn't buy identification strategy. Rejected within a few hours - unclear that associate editor had read the paper carefully, rather than just the limited 100 word abstract, since comments repeated points made within the paper. English. Was rejected today by editor as only 1/2 referee reports submitted. Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor. Jerome Adda was editor. This journal is completely a piece of junk. Very fast and professional referee reports. The letter from the editor suggests that he/she did not have a firm grasp of the paper. Super fast review. Other referee hadn't read the paper at all. 1 suggested r&r other reject, AE decided to reject--fair decision. Extremely constructive and useful comments, clearly from people from diverse backgrounds who engaged deeply with the paper (2 economists, 1 polsci). I wish we had drawn a different editor. Desk reject after 2 months. Ultimately fair. 1st round 2 1/2 months. It details the following: Preparing to go on the job market. Pretty fast, 1 high quailty report. The paper was with the journal for five months and we got a rejection with only one referee report with 5 bullet points (two of which were about typos).