But then, it took 20 weeks until we got the acceptance. Mark Watson was the editor. Massive work. Good experience, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. 20 months to acceptance since first submission. Ridicolous report: 3 lines where the referee asked to address "geopolitical" issues. Rubbish report ! And because he could not find theoretical contributions. Probably the fastest journal I've had experience with. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. 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. Not really a complaint though as there is no submission fee and the process was timely. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. Not general interest enough. Standard experience with the JHR. Terrible referee report referee made contradictory statements and econometric mistakes in report. Fast desk reject. No evidence anyone read the paper, even though they probably have the highest submission fee among econ journals. Desk rejected in 1 week. The journal is higher than B. Fair decision. One good quality referee with good comments and suggestions. the journal is recovering. Desk rejection within two weeks. Applied Economics was usually getting back to me in 6 months or even more, this time I had great experience. Third round (acceptance) took 2 weeks. Good comments from the referee. Editor had different opinion. After 12 months the paper was not even sent out to review or rejected despite 10 emails. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. Useful but demanding referee reports. Very fast. One week desk rejection with form letter. Editor rejected on the basis of being too narrow. Four line referee report written in a hurry before deadline and before ref obviously had to jet off on holiday. quick and clear communication with editor. Good communication and seemed very efficient. Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). That's right. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. 2 good, one grumpy referee report.
Job Market | Department of Economics | Virginia Tech All in all it was a fair rejection and a good experience overall. fluent ?in? Tough reports that required a lot of work but ultimately improved the paper significantly. good referee reports and relatively quick response, 1 Report after 8 months, Seemed like all points raised were easily answerable. two referees with constructive comments, one referee rather negative and no substantial comment. Given all that has happened with JPE in recent years, don't think I will waste my time and money with them again. Desk rejection in 3 days. Editor rejected the paper based on the decision of board of editor. Will definitely send again. His reports were completely crap. Editor provided a letter with comments. Good experience. Invites for 2nd round zoom interviews sent today. Outcome was fair and reports well done, but waiting time was unacceptable and the editor's lettere extremely poor. Editor rejected. Very good and useful referee reports. The other referee was serious however. Rather pleasant experience. Both referees are bad at econometrics. True, no time wasted, just the $125 submission fee. In only four sentences, ref manages to contradict himself. Some not so fair. (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint). I needed to contact the editorial office to know who the editor was, if the paper was sent to referess and etcc, and this after more than a month that the paper was submitted. Terribly run journal and I wouldn't advise anyone to submit there. The referee is clearly not up to the task. Editor read the paper and deskrejected in less than a week. All comments seem easy to answer. JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending). never submit to this journal again. Hence, terrible. The paper would be a good fit. Some people are simply too narrow in the scope of their research to be editors of a journal which claims to be of "general interest". Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. Couple of comments why the paper does not fit (relatively reasonable). One extremely thorough and helpful report, one shorter but still raising valid points. Will not submit again. Contact: hyejin -dot- park -at . Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, excellent experience. Pleasant first publication experience. After doing what the, very stupid, referee asked he said "not a big enough contribution". Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality. Really smooth process. Efficient. Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us. Referee reject without any comments after 14 months of chasing the journal. Welcome to the EconTrack Job Market Information Board, a service hosted by the AEA. Job Market. Editor read the paper and outlined clear and fair reasons for rejection. Excellent Editorial Comments. Manuscript was withdrawn - editor had assigned referees within 3 months of submission but then these were apparently not forthcoming. Good comments from refs that really helped the paper. Reminded several times and after waiting 1 year got one referee report. 10 months is too long to get back. 2 weeks for desk rejection. Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. professional. 150$ is quite a lot of money. Submission for a special issue. Fast response within one week. Poor report! Both referees were a bit too negative, but the reports were useful. One was favorable, the other was on the fence. Comments didn't make sense. 1 short report (but good points) and 1 very long report. That was also a very fast and good experience, though not the outcome I had hoped. Poor and unhelpful referee reports, club journal. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Very good referee reports. 3 Reports. Between two referee reports and two conference discussions, I have some things to consider for future submission. Got the refund soon after request. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh, London, Manchester - UK, Predoctoral Fellow Referee reports complete crap. Very quick handling but refereeing quality just absurd. The reason for rejection was that my paper was too specific for their readers. In print a couple of weeks later. Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. The AE was gentle and actually read my paper. 100 USD for such VALUABLE suggestion. Quick rejection. frustrating, because paper not assigned to the editor who works in my field. To avoid. He even signed the letter. got the impression that the reviewer did not read the paper and decided to dispute the review, the dispute process took slightly more than 1 month and the new reviewer sided with the old reviewer. $100 fee refunded. Hastily written by PhD student. Amazing experience. First referee constructive and positive. If you are in a hurry or need one to fill you CV, then choose it.. editor very helpful. Suggested a more specialized journal. After more than 3 months of waiting, the paper was rejected with a one-sentence referee report. Not recommended.
(Serious) are you actually worried about AI alignment? Economics Job Finance Job Rumors (489,006) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,503) Micro Job Rumors (15,223) Macro Job Rumors (9,792) European Job Market (100,940) China Job Market (103,450) Industry Rumors (40,309) The referee report is very good and even show a positive view to my paper. Both reports are not really useful. The editor (Ravikumar) gave me an R&R with reasonable requirements. Very good experience. Went on to publish in a better journal. Osbourne rejected following a 6-7 line bs report by adding his own very cheap comments. Suggested some other journals. Also suggested 3 very good field Journal. Co-editor and one referee attacked the paper for something that the paper already explicitly adresses. 2nd round 2 months. And some more nice words. Good experience. Also, did not bother to understand the theoretical contribution. Outcome was positive in the end, but I had to follow some nonsense instructions from the referees and the editor. Both referees recommended revise and resubmit but the editor came up with a nonsensical reason to reject the paper. Co-editor rejects because contribution is not big enough to warrant publication. desk reject by kahn in 48 hours. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. The second one is ok, but rejects for some peculiar reasons. fast desk rejection within 2 days. Fair and quick process. Extensive reviews though. Two of them suggested a possible solution. 2 Reports. Reports were okay but in the end not that helpful. Great experience. Outright accept after first resubmission still came as a surprise given JIE typically has 2-3 rounds. Proved to be quite true. But then again it was my fault, I didn't run an experiment! 1 month for R&R, 1 week for acceptance after revision submitted. 2 reports + report from AE which is a lot better than referee reports. Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. One referee was amazing, the other one added no value. Nice words from the editor. Joerg Baten seems to be literally an idiot making me wonder how he got picked. Journal: Utilities Policy (was not included as a journal to chose). Was pleased with the process, besides the rejection. To be honest, I had a hard time understanding exactly what the point of your paper is. One year since submission, no replies to my queries shitty journal. I will never submit these bullshits to the editor who trusts me. Readers familiar with the operation of the market can proceeddirectlytothe"data"subsectionbelow. Name Department Contact Subfield . Submission fee refund. 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. Editor desk rejected based on the identification strategy in the abstract, and clearly did not read the paper. 3 weeks to desk reject. Courteous notes from editor&co-editors when first response was delayed. Friendly email from editor, interesting reports from referees. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. Editor delayed a lot. Editor (Collins) might read the paper, but did not say much. Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff.