I am happy with the outcome. If Minnesotas one of the least woke departments, why does EJMR hate it so much? Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. Expected better, expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision. Only one referee report in 11 months? The editor read the paper and provided useful advice on how to improve it. referee and AE comments, OK at best. Depressing experience. The Editor sugested the JIE. Wonderful experience overall. Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. Not all theory papers are welcomed. Friendly email from editor, interesting reports from referees. Posted: (4 days ago) WebNov 2011 - Present10 years 4 months. That indicates he/she did not finish reading the paper. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. One is OK, other one is exteremly negative. Recently Announced. Desk reject after two weeks. First round took 2 months. Very, very disappointed. The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. Overall good experience. The status has been "Pending Editor Triage" for 10 months. All the points are addressable so I would've liked an RR but I'm not part of the club so I can't complain. Two referee reports and one report from the associate editor. After 6 months I got an extremely low quality report; looked like the reviewer had no idea about the paper or even the field in general. Overall, not bad experience. Submitted 4 February, rejected 29 December with 1 ok referee report that had been submitted in May. Insightful and constructive comments. Welcome to the Mathematics Jobs Wiki 2021-2022 research positions page. 4 weeks for desk rejection is too much. I do not think that the referee understood my paper. He/she also asked unrelated information such as why the market offer two similar contracts, which is not the scope of the study. 3 weeks for a desk reject. Very good experience; desk reject with highly valuable and fair comments by the co-editor within 10 days. Got a form letter in 10 days. There was no mistake. I'll definetly will submit again. Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. Advisor: Prof. Caterina Calsamiglia. REHO is a scam, not a journal. Second round 4 months before acceptance. Reviewers made many incorrect comments and almost no useful comments, editor straight up said didn't read the paper, but reviewers are negative so reject. Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). The referee's main criticism was like "they argued that A is the main point, which is weak. Very good reports, very effective handling of the editor. a? Editor agreed. Some fair comments which are already addressed in the paper but no one paid attention to that Quick and reasonable. No response. Most dishonest rejection. Accepted after revision within 1 month. Desk rejected in two weeks. One very constructive and positive report from economist, and one worst-I-ever-recieved report from a law scholar (maybe). No refund. quick process, helpful reports and editor comments, Kind reject from the editor after a week, providing reasons why the paper was rejected, 6 months to receive 2 reports. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. City of PhoenixPhoenix - USA, Senior Analyst - Economics Department Mod's pls delete it. Good experience. Editor was a little bit lazy as it took him two months after receiving the ref report to answer. Fair rejection. New editor apologized for the delay and handled the rejection quickly. best submission experience. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied. The referees made good points. A complete discrage. Still my favorite rejection of all time - used Shakespeare in a footnote, and first referee (whose English was subpar) said that the footnote was "very poorly written." For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. 5 weeks to first response. Useful and professional referee report . Boilerplate "contribution not significant enough", two months pretty long for a desk reject, but can't really complain about the desk reject itself because the paper is not so great. The editor's comments show that he is totally uninformed about the literature. Very efficient, good reports. Fast. Sent my paper to another different journal. Good comments. Would submit again. Submission to a special issue. Economics Job Market Rumors. Secodn editor waited almost 6 weeks after receiving the referee reports. At least they gave decent feedback. Three high quality reports that have helped to improve the paper. 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. Desk reject within two days. Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us. No response for seven and a half months. Interviewing at the ASSA meetings. Will never submit to this journal again. International Journal of Game Theory?(Springer). Not for the faint-hearted. Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. One quite short referee report. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. In case of desk rejection, they should return the submission fee. Highly recommended. Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work.". One of them gave some good suggestions, but I disagree with some other points she made. No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic. A very similar paper came out a month after our paper got rejected, new paper's authors are closely tied to this journal. Very clear about what was needed for revision and the 2nd round was only minor comments. Smooth process. Don't submit here. Editor felt like the requests made by reviewers were too significant to warrant an R&R, but we did eventually expand the study and it was reconsidered as a new submission. An extremely meager, short, embarassing, useless report. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. Will not submit here again. The editor received the report within a month. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. Actually, it was overall positive. One very good report, the other OK. Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. fast turnaround. Desk rejected within a week. It too me the editor 13 months to desk reject. 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. Contacting the editor twice did not result in speeding up the process (but we received at least a reply). The editor claimed that himself and another associate editor read the paper. 2 months after first submission of manuscript. Will not submit here in the future. Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response. Desk rejection would be normal, but the journal has changed dramatically the orientation towards family firms. First referee constructive and positive. The second was more critical. Worse experience ever. Would try again in the future. "Thank you for your paper. One very good report, the other average-to-good. Job Market. After revision was done the AE decided to reject without sending to referees! Very efficient journal. Super fast and clear feedback. 2 weeks). It was completely incoherent. Not enough novelty. Fair. Good report with relevant comments which will be useful if publication of this study is pursued further. Was desk rejected in one day. Would submit again. Didn't refund the submission fee. Quite good reports and sufficiently fast process. Completely useless reports from referees/editor not know the methodology involved. Good. Very useful comments from referees. If you need a fast turnaround, this is not the journal for you! Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. 14 days for a desk rejection. Editor handled the paper well. The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress. Overall, very good experience. Slow process (but exactly as advertised) and fair judgment. Quick turnaround with two okay reports. Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one). But the editor read the paper, and recommends Econometrica or JET or TE, Katz needed less time to skim the paper and offer a few good comments than I needed to write a one-sentence cover letter, It is a Finance paper. Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. 3 weeks for a desk rejectand they keep the $100. On its face, the referee provided a good report, but once I dug into the details, it was clear he didn't understand my identification strategy. After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. Referee did not bother to read the paper. About 10 weeks from submission to referee reject. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. Fantastic experience (accepted first round), Directly accepted within one month. Ass editor wrote some useful comments. Desk after 1 day from Katz, very polite and parsing of the paper, although not GI. Comments were meant for another paper. Bad to useless reports after a longish delay. Submission refund. A number of emails without reply since then. All of them are much speedier and you will actually get helpful comments that will improve your paper. 7 months for two very low quality reports. Editor agreed with them. 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. 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. Overall, not bad experience. Very good experience. KS rejected based on AE's brief report; AE comments somewhat useful but a tad unfair (main criticism applies to many papers publ. Editor cites two but only sends one. but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. No regrets, Good reports, not extremely helpful, but good. Editor highly incompetent. 3 sentences total, six months. Useful but demanding referee reports. Desk rejected within 7 days. Pretty well run, can't complain. One good report, one completely useless with only superficial, general remarks. Desk reject after one month, no comments just standard letter, Quick rejection (12 days), with no comments on the paper, Rodrik rejected 10 days after submission, advised a field journal. The editor was Christian Pop-Eliches. Unbased rejection after more than six months with mediocre reports and editorial justification. This referee made no specific comments. After one round of revision, two of the three reviewers accepted the paper and one requested at best minor revision. Lots of puffed up explanation marks and faux outrage. The process had only one negative side; the reviewers implicitly asked to cite their works. Very slow, but fair process overall. Paper is about a politically charged issue, so I would like to think that more than one reviewer should be asked to submit a report. Comments were not very helpful. Horrible associate editor, Arkolakis, rejected based on his personal views. Four line referee report written in a hurry before deadline and before ref obviously had to jet off on holiday. Overall positive experience. At least it was fast I guess. Zero constructive comments! Too us more than a month to revise and still had doubts. Very efficient. Welcome to the Academic Jobs Wiki. Second round--took less than a month to get 2 detailed second reports from referees--impressive! Another one was sharp. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. Referee reports were incredibly useful and significantly improved the paper. The top 20% of women are chasing the top 1% of men. One highly vauable report; one okay-ish, one less useful. terrible experience, after submission my paper was not sent out to referees for more than 6 months. Both suggested rejection. Said they would refund the submission fee, which is nice. I am currently studying the interaction between technological and demographic changes and the labor market. Fast process and 2 helpful ref. One nice and one not nice referee. Two weeks for a desk rejection. Extremely outdated econometric "suggestions" and an overall lack of understanding. Quick and well handled by the editor. This post is a continuous work in . Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. This would be fine if desk-reject was motivated by "not a good fit" or such. Two rounds of R&R! Negative report is pretty bad. Ridiculous report by the most clueless referee who probably spend one hour only to read and review the paper altogether. great experience. The editor is incredible. In all the rejection was fair. The editor handling the paper had no idea about the literature. It seems they rushed to reject it. The paper is mostly empirical and they asked for massive extension of the dataset. To summarize, this reviewer apparently thought he had better English than Shakespeare. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. At least they are faster than their reputation. useless reports referees didn't seem to read the paper and appeared not to be experts .. Desk-rejected in 7 days: "the paper lacks sufficient political economy content to be appropriate". First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. University of Sheffield. I recommend. Candidate Job Market Roster. said it was a matter of fit. of? rejected after 5 months of 'reviews completed'. Technical issues handled by non-experts. One good referree report, one positive but unhelpful, one negative and entirely useless. Also gave a lengthy extension. Very late and vague one page referee report, rejection based on perceived bad fit with journal. It was clear the editor asked a former student to be the referee, I guess the editor does not feel positively about the paper. However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. Remarkable coincidence. The other report was *atrocious*. No letter from the editor. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. Editor handled it well. The other reviewer raised some minor issues. 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. No progress in six months although I send emails to push. It appears they don't like overly technical papers (it's an interdisciplinary journal so depends on who the editor is at the time - if not an economist, then avoid). The first note of the referee claimed that I didn't do something I clearly did. Good comments from the reviewers. Short unhelpful referee reports which ask to cite referees. Long time to edit and format after acceptance. The editor rejected it though. Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. Transfer from another Elsevier journal. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. 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. No negative comments from referees on the substance, but one referee just didn't like it. Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data. Really unfortunate waste of time. Referees were obviously a bad choice for this topic. 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". Helpful and honest reviews. High quality reports and useful comments from the editor. After about 1 year of wait, the editor decided to reject the submission on the basis of 1 report (2 referees did not respond) that contained only 2-3 lines that already work was done on the topic (although appreciating the empirical analysis). 6 weeks for two reasonable referee reports.
Crumbl Cookie Franchise Owner Salary, Articles E