econ job market rumors wikiecon job market rumors wiki

For three months the editor has not assigned referees! Referees were obviously a bad choice for this topic. May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. Desk rejection in one week. The other referee was of low quality. One positive report, one negative, editor's reject decision. High quality editing. Very bad reports from non economists. 5 weeks for a desk reject. Would submit again. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. I will never submit to this journal. Unprofessional letters, one full of typo and pushed to a no-way-working direction; the other simply was wrong on his/her main comment. Desk rejection after three days. Rejected in 4 days, editor said work was done net resting but not broad enough. Other outlet probably more suitable. Very fast and efficient. Less than a month for two strong referee reports on a non-experimental paper: useful suggestions and some parts of the paper were obviously not clear enough, although no intractable issues so rejection was disappointing. way too long for a "standard" rejection. Still, I lost 7 months overall. Process ended after 1 report. For a short paper, it took quite a longtime for deskreject without a single sentence relating to the paper. Mostly unhelpful report filled with numerous unnecessary resentful and bitter. your paper, after some updating to reflect the recent complementary literature, would be more appropriate for a more specialized journal. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. One referee report was fine. but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. He/she states that a particular model delivers a set of results, although I show that it does not. Apparently the assigned coeditor left and paper got stuck. solution? Katz rejected in two hours with comments that seemed to be written for some other paper. Easy/doable revisions were asked. Katz had very clear advice regarding revision (also what parts of the referee reports to ignore). Except when I have coauthored with someone who is at an elite school, I've been desk rejected every time at QJE. When he rejected the paper for the Economic Systems, he then asked me to submit the same paper to his journal "Emerging Markets Finance and Trade." Submission is waste of time. Editor offers insightful suggestions as well. 1 helpful report. Quick turnaround, helpful comments, will submit again, Desk rejected in less than a week. Would definitely recommend it even if it's a longshot. Neither referee is hostile. Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. One week desk rejection with form letter. It took 18 months after first revision. Very good journal, with reactive editorial assistant (Sabah Cavalo), and very good and constructive comments. Very useful comments from referees. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. Reports were very positive, it took us 12 weeks to resubmit. A long wait but not very helpful comments. Referee #1 wrote 1 sentence saying to submit it to AER. Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. also received comments from the old reviewer that were better than the first review. Seems as though they did not like the content and were looking for an excuse to reject. Average turnaround time was rather long for AEJ standards. Not a r, Contribution: Single country Sample and OLS production, International Review of Law and Economics, very helpful comments which improved the quality of the paper; time between resubmit and acceptance: 6 days! One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. Rejected on pretty poor grounds by an associate editor. Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. Almost happy. The referee reports were crap (minor points without really saying anything about the research question, the methodology and the results of the paper). Maybe small sample made it untouchable? Constructive referee report; said needed more robustness checks, but difficult in word limit. It is definitely not worth the long wait! Another one was sharp. be viewed as too specific. The editor was not helpful at all. Overall, I was very pleased with the process. Referee reports were of high quality. I got two rounds of R&R. Horner is a disaster! Good reports, but what a punch in the gut. Six months to respond. Rejected in 24 hrs, no reason given. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. Please Login or . 3 reports, very quick. 1 report from a senior researcher, who thinks that our paper is a fine exercise but suits field journal better. 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. . Reasonably good experience; referee not overly experienced with topic. Disappointing turnaround for this journal. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. 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. No response for seven and a half months. The paper was published in 2016, Decent referee reports that indeed improve the paper. Editor (Rogerson) makes some encouraging comments but cannot hide the fact that the referees were not really that enthusiastic about the paper, even if they couldn't find much to criticize. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list. No feedback and no useful suggestion in the rejection letter. The editor was quick and helpful. One ref decided to the opportunity to pimp their own working paper. It is a disgrace to the profession reflects poorly on the journal. very professional; some referees had good points; should have spent more time polishing the paper before submitting. It is run by "Kirk", [1] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. One of the best outlet for phd students. It seems that the last guy didn't read the paper carefully and I wonder how it could take 4month to write such a poor report. Comments were sharp and precise and resulted in a much better paper. Boston University Department of Economics. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. 3 constructive and useful reports. Ok referee reports. Nice words from Editor. Drill down into the main traffic drivers in each channel below. Nice reports. Good reports with decent suggestions. After revise and resubmit, was rejected, Next year, similar article appeared in the journal authored by one of the associate editors. Was contacted again after another two years promising that my paper was to be considered, and say yes please do. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. Two useful referee reports at the end of the third month. Ref reports of high quality, mention half a dozen suggestions for robustness which perhaps amounted to too much for the editor to let this go to revision. Frustrating. Very good experience, the editor (Aizenman) was very fast. But overall very very slow process. Quite useful to provide further extensions, Fast processing and three excellent referees that helped to substantially improved the paper. Shameless people. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. Very constructive comments from Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) and referees. I am very surprised by this unprofessional oversight. The paragraph/comment not constructive. One report useless, read only the first quarter of the paper. UCLA Economics. Quick response within three days. Not very impressed. It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. Disappointing. 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 good and helpful referee reports even though it is a rejection. The editor's letter was well-written. Really involved editor and a referee who suggested changes that, while complex, were easy to deal with. Very slow. The editor picked a new (hostile) referee in the 2nd round. rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report. Contribution too small. Environment, Development, and Sustainability. One recommended reject, the other R&R. Katz rejected my paper before I was done submitting it; suspect time travel. helpful comments; quick process; good experience. In print a couple of weeks later. Referee reject after more than a year. The reason for rejection was that my paper was too specific for their readers. 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. The first round took too long (~10 months). -> Toilet. Helpful referee reports. One referee liked it, the other and the editor didn't. The AEA provides a guide to the job market process created by John Cawley. An Associate Editor clearly read the paper. Rejected with only 1 referee reports and after waiting 10 months! Handling editor still rejects for unclear reasons; very frustrating, but at least fairly timely. Unfair decision. More than 16 weeks!! Received the standard 50% fee refund (wow, so useful), Generic desk reject w/o further information, Desk rejected after about 1 month. Decent reports, rejecting for fair reasons. Fast review process. Referee report was reasonable and improved the manuscript. There is only one report called review number 2! Editor sat on completed reports for 3 months before making a decision. Positive comments from the editor. Article was rejected but the comments were generally helpful and thoughtful. Unfair decision. Single report. Very quick and very fair. Glad that they didn't waste my time. After more than 3 months of waiting, the paper was rejected with a one-sentence referee report. Overall, very happy with the process. Paper was accepted two days later. One referee seemed inexperienced and little informative comments. If you don't have that - expect to be desk rejected. Handled by the new co-editor. Both referees have good understanding of the topic. The IJIO has a rapid review process. I was pleased with the experience because I've never made this far with them. 14 days for a desk rejection. Manuscript number assigned at 10AM, rejected by 7PM. Reason cited: weak paper. No applied letter should take 9 months to referee and the fact that editor did not solicit additional reports or nag the referee shows they don't care. One very low quality. Desk rejected in 25 minutes. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. Reports only partly helpful. Fast process. William A. Barnett is a very professional editor and reviews were helpful. Ref reports quite useful. Job Market. Tough reports that required a lot of work but ultimately improved the paper significantly. Okay experience overall, 3 weeks for a two sentence desk rejection which suggested submitting to a more specialist journal, Overall good experience. Two excellent (and supportive) referee reports. Long and bad reviewing process. 10 lines not even sure they read the paper. interesting and polite reports. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. 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. Report from ref1 and AE were very helpful. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. 1 on the fence. 8 days for a desk rejection. Editor rejected. Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. Reports were not very helpful. Editor read the paper and outlined clear (and fair) reasons for rejection. At first the handling editor informed us that the paper is sent for peer review. Great experience. We got RR and referee reports 4 moths after submission, then it took 5 months to acceptance. He/she also asked for the summary statistics of my high frequency data while I already provided the estimates of bid-ask spread, price impact, order flow autocorrelation of each month for the entire contracts which shows his lack of knowledge about market microstructure. a bit slowtwo general positive+one negative reports, and the editor rejected itfeel sad, but not too bad experience Average (low) quality reports. Very constructive and useful for revisions. Polite, even quite positive reports. 1 suggested r&r other reject, AE decided to reject--fair decision. Reports submitted within one month. Reports detailed and helpful. Referee 1 happy with resubmission (no further comments), referee 2 suggested rejection or major rewriting. one ok report, one very hostile. paper proposed theory that is quite a substantial departure, so i appreciate the editor's willing to take it on. Quick, very good feedback. Horrible experience. Excellent referees too, no nitpicking, focused on contribution. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. The editor Mark Taylor accepted the paper after one day of the last re-submission. Referee obviously has no clue of what's going on. Editor was fair, his decision was understandble, but 6 months is clearly too long. The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. Avoid if you can. And the whole process took us 8 months. Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines). Quick responds. Form letter. Reviewers seem to be very well acquainted with my research area (health). Not general interest enough. We saw none. Rejected with one referee report in just under a month. one positive, one negative report. I had. Under 2 weeks for a desk reject. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. One referee was amazing, the other one added no value. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO) Not very fast but good in overall. Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. It too me the editor 13 months to desk reject. Currently under R&R at a journal with the same ranking. In hindsight, submitted the paper too prematurely. He suggests AER Insights and top field journals. I was surprised these two letters resulted in the overall reject. The best rejection letter ever received. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. One very good report, one OK. One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal. One of the critics was not applicable, but the major critic was quite helpful. Go report in 2 days. However we had make all of the referee's suggestions and the outcome was not positive. About 3 weeks turnaround. A bit slow, but good comments by the referee. Ref needed 6 months to produce a paragraph of a response. Don't think they even bothered reading the first page. Editor picked reasonable comments, asked to take into account suggestions, accepted the paper after the referees agreed that what I did is reasonable. Waste of time. Helpful and competent editor who made clear what were the important points to address. Suggest field journal. Fast and friendly. Decent referee reports, good turnaround time. One referee waited for 182 days to submit his/her report as there was a time stamp on the report. Our claims were supported. One of the referee reports was of alarmingly low quality. Review process was very efficient. Got accepted in three days. took 5 months. Write any form of equation and you're skewered! Second report very good. One furstrating assertion by the editor. Fairly quick acceptance. Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. complimentary with some comments but said focus was too narrow, Good feedback from eitor, very quick desk reject. Excellent reports that really improved the paper. Sent it to EL on Christmas Eve, got the desk reject from Gomez right after Christmas on 26th for not enough contributions. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. Very good experience. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. Said the paper was to mathematical/econometrical for the journal. Desk rejected in a few days. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. Comments are mainly about rephrasing implications and minor issues. 3rd round 1 month and then accepted. April 16, 2022. 3 months (!) Thanks Amy! 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) Referee cites one crucial assumption to kill the paper, but the paper does not make that assumption, and clearly explains it. Not too bad an experience. Monica Singhal handled the submission within a bit less than 2 months, and takes time to give a detailed opinion on the paper, impresive! Thank goodness that there are more journals in health economics started. Bad referee reports. Unacceptable waiting time. Journal: Utilities Policy (was not included as a journal to chose). Comments were helpful. The results just didn't fit their priors. Extremely efficient process with good comments by referees. 10 days in total!!! desk rejection within 1 week. Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. I want my money back ! The other reviewer I suspect of being a graduate student with not so good comments. Paper was a letter. that ?no? Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. Deemed too narrow for the journal. "Referee report" Biggest joke on Earth!! Editor skimmed it at best and decided to reject without comments. Not a great experience. Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days. 2 good, one grumpy referee report. Neither of the two reviewers seemed t have read the paper. I pulled the paper and send it elsewhere. Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. Worst experience ever. The current reality of the economics job market is this. Negative reaction of referees. The referee reports were also awful. Reviewing all the documents, she does not like the paper: rejection with 800 words of blabla. One of the worst experience I have ever had. Some good comments from reviewers, but all focused on marginal issues. 1 report (from different referees) each round. The whole process lasts less than a year from submission to acceptance. One referee clearly did not read the paper, while the other one did not understand the meaning of control variables. 12 months and waiting. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. Overall good experience. After R&R, the referee required one more round of revision. Until the 1970s, junior economics hiring was largely by word of mouth. Excellent handling. Four months for a desk reject! Submitted August 14, 2015. very good comments. It has had it uses as a source of gossip but it accumulated the worst of any group of mostly 20 something American men. The referee report is very good and even show a positive view to my paper. totally useless editor. Extensive, constructive and mildly positive ref report. One referee report---which is actually better than any report ever received with this paper (including those from RFS, JFQA, and MS). Finished revision in 1 month and once resubmitted took them 2 weeks to accept. Actually took nearly 15 months. The first referee points out at the weaknesses of the paper and proposes reasonable solutions. The editor read the paper carefully and made helpful comments. AE recommended another journal. 3 pages of helpful comments by the editor, suggested very good field journals instead, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society). One referee posted two of his own papers including url in the report, one of which was just accepted in the same journal before sending reports. Besides, the editor's messages were rude. After careful consideration, the JAPE editorial team considers the paper is largely a statistics exercise. Will never submit to this journal again. Editor agreed with them. Quick first response with major r&r. Referee reports complete crap. Most efficient experience with journals ever! The paper is a solid analysis but does not sufficiently add to our understanding. nice letter from editor, good and fair comments, 1 ref report good.

Spotify Iphone Stops Playing In Background, Memphis Tennessee Fedex Delay, San Juan County Court Docket, 20950031ff2ecd75dbb8fb1f3badc1af3e7e Kentucky State University Homecoming 2022, Carl Rogers Core Conditions 1957 Reference, Articles E