econ job market rumors wiki

Fast, but absolutely useless reports. In December 2016 we managed to get a reply from the managing editor with the same story, that the decision was a matter of days. R&R was helpful. I'm over the moon, great experience ! No reimburment of submission fee ($130). (It doesn't seem like a club journal. Employers can provide information about their ongoing hiring processes for candidates on the job market. Third report seemed written by a sage speaking in amharic, most statements were elliptical in nature, and we were left wondering what the referee's point had been. Desk rejected by Sarte in 3 days without comments. It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. My fault for not discussing that up front. Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. Unacceptable waiting time. The law scholar did not like technical thing but I just used. Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. Took altogether 8 months to acceptance. 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). Milner's an emeritus, what else does he have to do? One referee, although clearly in favour of publication, asked a good deal of revisions and it took us 4 motnhs to respond so most of the delay may have been our fault. Ok experience. Under one month for one very brief report saying not good enough for the journal and a completely indecipherable AE report. Will never submit here. And because he could not find theoretical contributions. Fair decision. Two years for such outcome. -- Divided referee reports. Development Economics, Family Economics, Gender Economics, Domestic Violence Durandard, Tho: Kellogg School of Management . Armstrong is so much better than Hermalin 6 months for the first R&R (2 referee reports plus a very detailed report from the editor), then 3 months for the 2nd R&R, then the paper was accepted. Best experience in a long time. rejection. Decision by editor (Mark Taylor): minor revision and resubmit. They like the paper but the contribution not enough for Econometrica. Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. Standard experience with the JHR. Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. First response in less than 3 months. within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. No indication that the co-editor read the paper. Really improved the paper. Two useful reports and one garbage report thrashing the paper. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. complete waste of time, Very nice editor's letter. Overall an excellent experience. Overall, the reports were good so no complains. Very unprofessional. rejected in exactly three weeks - editor said that the topic only gets published in JEBO if there's a special issue (which mine was not connected with). Ridicolous report: 3 lines where the referee asked to address "geopolitical" issues. Suggested changes and several other outlets. The first note of the referee claimed that I didn't do something I clearly did. Helpful comments from the editor (besides the usual thy shall cite my papers). Helpful comments from reviewer and editor. Three tough rounds which made the paper better. two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. One almost non-existent referee report (basically two lines just saying the paper is not broad enough), one very detailed and overall positive report. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. I am very surprised by this unprofessional oversight. Editor was changed, asked for electronic resubmission and paper got rejected. Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. Referees basically thought contribution was too small to merit publishing. At least it was fast. The editor prefers state-of-the-art methods rather than good ideas. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. Ref report definitely helpful. Referee comments greatly improved the paper, editor was awesome. Editor was respectful and not full of himself. Advisor: Prof. Caterina Calsamiglia. Great process, fast and fair. Editor decided to reject because he could only find one person to review. Really smooth process. While the goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. Very quick response. Took 7 months to get one referee report. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. Cool editor. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. At the end, I got two reports; one helpful, the other garbage. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Quick desk reject, apparently considers itself a GI journal now (?). AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. The whole process lasts less than a year from submission to acceptance. I received my Ph.D. degree at the University of Chicago in 2022. Elsevier is terrible, screwed up the transfer so took over a month to end up on editor's desk. Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. Editor suggested top field, decided not to send to referrees due to "narrowness of topic." This is a wiki for tracking searches in various categories for academic (i.e. Rejected by editor. Currently under R&R at a journal with the same ranking. Second round was down to one ref and editor, third round was just editor. One very low quality and unfriendly report. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. Worst experience ever nearly one year just to hear "not much new, therefore reject" 100 bucks for nothing. Incredibly tough process with three rounds of revisions - first round ended up me writing a response as long as the original paper. No way to check on status. At every round, it took them only 2 months to respond back. According to him one referee is in favor but the other is not. Chat (0) Conferences. One reviewer seemed to think a clean accept, one was 'not really convinced'. Great comments from editors and referees. Long time to first response and had to chase up editor, but comments were helpful and editor was very engaged in the revision process. will definitely try it again next time. Apart from long waiting time (editor part of the old guard at JPE), positive experience. My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. Osbourne rejected following a 6-7 line bs report by adding his own very cheap comments. My experience with other journals when there is only 1 referee, the editor always provides a report detailing their reasons for accepting or rejecting the paper. 1 useless report, 1 very helpful and 1 okay. no comments given. English. Desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Rejected within one day. Good experience. Bad experience overall, although the reports came quickly. Very good experience. Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper, no longer a serious all purpose journal imho; "desk reject" after 6 mos on the basis of style in the abstract, Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded, One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end, Terrible experience. I received an answer of the editor after 2 months. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. The other reviewer raised some minor issues. Acceted as is; not a single change requested. He gave few recommendations. 5 weeks for a desk reject. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. Great experience. I'd submit there again in the future. 2 good reports, clearly improved the paper. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Insightful and constructive comments. Pretty efficient turnaround. Clearly scanned the paper, deemed not general enough, and recommended other outlets. Very clubby journal. One very grumpy referee report. That sounds fair to me. Only have issues with one of the reviewers. Not a good experience. Can't complain with the decision and the entire process. Desk reject in 1 week. Never submit again. Both referees read the paper, one of them even found some mistake in the proof. Not for the faint-hearted. Katia Meggiorin. DE claims to have too large acceptance rate. Will definitely send again. After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected. Good comments from 2 referees, the other did not appear to have read the paper well. Efficient process and fast decision. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. Quick desk rejection from the Editor (about a week). However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. Got a form letter in 10 days. Desk rejected after 23 hours. Secondary: Applied Macroeconomics and International Economics. Graduate Advisors. Very slow in responding inquiries. Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. Split recommendations, editor decided to reject which is fair enough. Received two referee reports and a review from the associate editor within two months of initial submission. A number of emails without reply since then. Very long wait. Some not so fair. 5 months, disappointing experience. Just one referee report. Not enough novelty. I understand there is variability in this process, but it was a terrible experience. (Serious) are you actually worried about AI alignment? Economics Job One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. Whole process super quick. Very helpful referee report. I withdrew the paper. Reasonable. Overall great experience. Total 6 months. Nice editor message. "Growing by the Masses: Revisiting the Link between Firm Size and Market . One extremely useful and one useless report. In May 2016 the editor promised a decision within a days. Second referee made some useful suggestions. Generic rejection. Reports included four small bullet points with badly written English. Polite / nice email from Editor. So not good but frankly much better than other journals. We did. Three high quality reports that have helped to improve the paper. reviews were helpful, required a month's solid work to revise. good process overall, Good experience. But I'm not in any club and not at an elite school (by choice). Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. Finally, I have now wothdrawn my paper. took the money. Referee one was inexpert in the field, and suggested we cite mostly irrelevant papers published by the handling editor. Very good referee reports and useful suggestions from the AE, 1 very good referee report, 1 completely useless. Bad journal. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. Useless reports. Referees' comments were useful. Desk reject in 1 week. I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. It took me a lot of time to deal with unqualified comments. Comments didn't make sense. Very bad experience. One referee liked the paper but had doubts about the Y variable (kiss of death); other referee turned in a three page report but missed the point of the paper completely (while asking us to delete the explanation which would have answered his questions). Would submit again. Reasonably good experience; referee not overly experienced with topic. oh they're good! Very good referee and associate editor report. The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. 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." 3rd review was pending. Shame on you, AE. My previous rejection there was north of 6 months One very low quality report, one very thorough report. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. In the second round, the comments are from only one referee, they are easy so revise. Russia was born in Kiev. Conveyed no sense at all that anyone even looked at the paper. Recommend. -> Toilet. A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!! Extremely constructive and useful comments, clearly from people from diverse backgrounds who engaged deeply with the paper (2 economists, 1 polsci). Also a very kind editorial letter. Just a couple of days for rejection, he had good words to say but paper too specific for general-interest. AE did an awesome job. But the editor (Kunst) decided to "follow the referee's advice to reject your submission", even though there was no indication of such a recommendation in the RR. Basically if you don't make everyone happy on the first round you stand no chance at this journal. Good referee report + some comments from AE. It took 18 months after first revision. 8 months after submission, an in-depth and articulated referee report with many comments. Amazing turnaround. 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. Answer in 24h. Comments just so-so. Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). Admittedly, they must receive a lot of submissions, but that does not excuse this. Clear and concise communication with insightful and prfound comments by editor and reviewers. Agreed that this journal is a joke. Editor slept on the paper's submission history and the reviewer's dishonesty. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data. terrible experience, after submission my paper was not sent out to referees for more than 6 months. "Scope a bit too narrow" for Economica. The referee reports were serious and offered some good suggestions, although one of the referees appeared not to understand the theoretical model used in the paper. Very good experience all around. useless reports. Two reports of middling quality. Got most thorough, informed, and useful referee reports in 5 years. It took 2.5 months from initial submission to receiving three OK reviews. At least the process was fast. Note that the shorter the time span considered, the more likely the ranking is going to be spurious. At least it was fast I guess. Good referee reports about key aspects of the research question framing and relevance. Fair decision. Rejected by an Associate Editor, who actually read the paper, got the main idea clearly, and wrote a 2 full-page report with reasoning why this is not for JET and what journal outlets might be considered. Reviewer number two said the paper had no relevant contribution beyond those of a paper recently published in a top journal. Flores, Jairo. Great experience. Editor did not add any comments. Very complementary and helpful reviews. Reports were of moderate quality. Mostly decent reports raising fair points, OK experience. Editor rejected, but I have a feeling that both refs recommended R&R for different reasons. The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. They clearly help the author to improve their paper instead of rejecting it without trying to extract the best. Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Pleasant experience overall. Process was a complete disgrace. The third one very general and less useful. Economics Job Market Rumors Off Topic Technology. Two reports -- one good (mostly cosmetic changes), one very short. Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. A bit long but very helpful referee report. 10 lines not even sure they read the paper. Expected a lot better from this journal. They also indicated that the paper was better suited to a a different journal. Desk rejected in one day. Thank goodness that there are more journals in health economics started. American Economic Association Summary understated contribution of the paper making it looking boring. The other clearly did not understand what is going on and wrote some junk. Invites for 2nd round zoom interviews sent today. Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. Took seven weeks to get these reviews, pretty efficient journal. One of the worst experience I have ever had. Helpful comments from referees and relatively fast. American Economic Association Culter said that there was backlog at JHE. Good experience. Extremely fast and with 2 high quality RRs. It was crazy to wait that long for a dek rejectionwas not happy at alland there was not any comments or any reviews at allbasically waited for nothing for 5 months.. 3 weeks for a desk reject. They raised concerns that very literally addressed in section heads. Very good referee reports - largely positive but requiring some modifications, deleting one section. Desk rejection in 3 days. 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 bar is high for Exp Econ. Desk rejected within a week. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. AE followed majority reports without additional insights. Paper eventually got accepted at higher ranked journal (!). Suggested a more specialized journal. I? waiting 19 months as of today, sent 3 reminfers, Hall nor anybody else from the journal havent responded so far to any of my emails. 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. A nice formated letter saying that the topic was not interesting enough for the audience of the Journal. Fair and constructive comments. Good report and conditionally accepted with minor revisions. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. Referee seemed have little idea about the field or didn't read my 7 page paper. One very good report, the other average-to-good. Bruno Biais was AE. Encouraging words from editor, good experience. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. They just pocketed the submission fee. No comments, but very fast. Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. 7 months for 2 reviews (and one reviewer was already familiar with paper). Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic. Complained. 4.5 weeks to desk reject. I don't necessarily disagree with the editor's assessment, but was surprised at the low-quality of the referee report. For the steep fee would have been appropriate if editor had written a few sentences about why they rejected. I heard back really quickly with helpful comments. Would submit again. One very thorough that discussed on every paper point.Good experience, out of scope for this journal, although the most cited paper in this journal also addresses the same research problem, Bad experience. Victoria Ziqi Hang (U of Washington), Freddie Papazyan (UCSD), Lukas Bolte (Stanford), Christine Szerman (Princeton), Alfonsi (Berkeley), Raghav Malhotra (Warwick), Regina Seibel (Zurich), Philipp Wangner (Toulouse), Anna Vitali (UCL), Morten Grindaker (BI Business School), Tony Fan (Stanford), Elena Ashtari Tafti (UCL), Xiao Shan (Zurich), Andre Sztutman (MIT), Via Twitter: Matranga (Chapman), Barreto (Sciences Po), Coly (PSE), Galvez (Banco de Espaa), Petracchi (Brown), Miglino (UCL), Casella (UPenn), Morzenti (Bocconi), Perdoni (Edinburgh), Possnig (UBC), Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson), Borghesan (Penn), Van der Beck (Swiss Finance Institute and EPFL), Ferey (LMU), Seibel (Zurich), Acquatella (Harvard), D'Adamo (UCL), Vattuone (Warwick), Mugnier (CREST), Decker (Zurich), Morazzoni (UPF), Decker (Zurich), Altmann (Oxford), Jin (BU & CMU), Diegert (Duke), Guigue (CREST), Leroutier (SSE), Ramakrishnan (WUSTL), Souchier (Stanford), Banchio (Stanford GSB), Sullivan (Yale), Acquatella (Harvard), Jin (BU), Diegert (Duke), Herstad (Chicago), Schaner (USC),Gudgeon (West Point), Wiseman (Berkeley), Kochar (USC), Li (MIT Sloan), Ostriker (MIT), Zou (Oregon AP), U.S. Slightly disappointing. Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. Would submit again. Very quick process! I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. Pleasant first publication experience. 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. Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. Clear editor had read the paper, helpful comments. Very efficient process. Desk rejected after 1 month. What a joke! Editor Michele Boldrin did a good job handling the paper. 1 Month from Submission to a very positive R&R. 2 months to R&R, revisions accepted by editor about a week after re-submission. fair comment. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. One recommended reject, the other R&R. 2 very short reports after waiting 11 months and paying a crazy submission fee. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. Bunche Hall 8292. Economics Job Market Threads. 2 Weeks. To avoid. You can even not see these wordings in Game of Thrones. Overall good experience. He only mentioned that I failed to mention a lot of papers who were all by the same person. Controversial journal. The editor decided major revision. Ok and efficient process - was told at one point that Chirs Pissarides had to approve acceptance our paper because of the subject matter, which seemed implausible. One very useful report from a critical referee, and one mediocre. EJM - Econ Job Market One useful report and the other less so. Contact Us 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 617-868-3900 info@nber.org webaccessibility@nber.org. Efficient handling by editor. Based on the large volume of submissions we receive bla bla, Unfathomably long time to first decision, referee comments impleid the paper was not read diligently, despite being just 4-5 pages. Very slow. Incredibly insulting rejection that made it clear the referee had not read past the first 2 pages of the paper. Which.a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. 9 months for 1 2-page referee report. Candidate Job Market Roster: Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. Referee did not even sent a report after year and a half. No substantive comments from any of the three referees. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. 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). Good report. Explains longish time to first review. Decent reports, no complain. Really good experience, good comments and moved quickly through the process. Three mediocre reports. Says model's too complex then suggests an addition which would have tripled the state space. One referee gave very constructive comments, but referenced three papers by same person (I'm guess that's who referee was). Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. 2 rounds of r&r. Desk reject in 7 days. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee. Editor just pointed at reports and made no obvious effort to think about the paper. The initial resposen took too long (almost 4 moth to be sent our to referees). Costas Meghir responses all submissions. Nice communication with the Editor, but the referre report was terse with only one and brief idea. Almost zero substantive comments on the technical part and not surprising that it was sloppy handling given that it was Pop-Eliches who was the co-editor. Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. Would definitely recommend it even if it's a longshot. Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. Excellent referee reports and detailed feedback from the editor on what to focus on and what to ignore. 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). Would submit here again now that I know what to expect. Not recommended. Bad to useless reports after a longish delay. I was politely told that I should have cited more JRU papers. major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). Worst experience ever. Initial response for R&R was quite fast, but the second response after the resubmission took quite a long time, and it seems that the paper was just sitting at the editor's desk for more than a month before they were assigned back to the referees. However, it seems the process is one editor first decide whether to send to referee or not but a second editor makes the final decision (William Kerr)? the ?author? 2 months, the article is still under internal review DPR had my manuscript for over a year, and never even got it under review. Round 2 also yielded good referee reports too. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. The peer review process was fast. One referee suggests alternative data sources for robustness even though it took as a year to hand-collect the original data. Good feedback from AE too. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. The comments from the editor are also disappointing: his main suggestion is to send our 7,500 words paper to economics letters. 3 weeks to desk reject. Very fast. quick. At least turnaround time was fast: 14 days. That is not cool. The other reviewer I suspect of being a graduate student with not so good comments. R&R, then reject. however,? Only got form letter. A waste of 250$ and time. Transfer from another Elsevier journal - additional round of R&R but easily satisfied and made the paper better. Two fantastic referee reports within 1.5 months. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. Good comments, made the paper better. Four line referee report written in a hurry before deadline and before ref obviously had to jet off on holiday. Over 8 weeks for a desk reject due to poor fit for journal. the other report is empty (rejection). Lousy comments from the Editor in chief. The paper was a very good fit though. Andrew deJong The Effect of Common Ownership on Pricing: Evidence from the Airline Industry . Completely unacceptable. "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". So they had no idea about basic econometrics. Paper drastically improved through process. J.E. One review was good, and helped to improve the paper, the other one (recommended rejection) was raising many peripheral issues. The editor Adonis Yatchew was very helpfull and efficient. Nothing in the email suggested that anyone had actually read the paper. Very, very disappointed! four reports. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates | Economics Department

Captain D's Chocolate Cake Discontinued, Plantronics Mute On Mute Off Problem, California Building Code Window Sill Height, How To Prove Financial Dependency, Adrian Durham Leaves Talksport, Articles E