At least response in 1.5 month. Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). 2 weeks to generic desk reject with no comments whatsoever. In print a couple of weeks later. Constructive comments and Nice experimence! Co-editor and one referee attacked the paper for something that the paper already explicitly adresses. I resubmitted in January, and the paper was accepted with minor revisions in March. No specfic comment on the paper. One very constructive and positive report from economist, and one worst-I-ever-recieved report from a law scholar (maybe). Very good referee and associate editor report. 1 positive and 1 negative report. Kind words by editor, though weird reasoning, nearly a month for an anonymous desk rejection. Nice process and outcome. No report yet. Awful experience! Very slow process but happy to get accepted. Bad Experience. Commented that something we are doing is not correct, while all the papers in the field are doing the same. Excellent and detailed report, fair decision. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. The Editor is regular contributor to that mistake and provided non-sensical rejection. Kathryn spier, the editor, was even more clueless and unable to see that we were right and s(he) was wrong. 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. Applied Economics was usually getting back to me in 6 months or even more, this time I had great experience. very good comments. Received 3 high-quality referee reports within 4 months. Disappointing. Extremely unprofessional. Resubmitted and then conditional accepted within a week. Excellent desk reject by Larry S. Recommended a field journal by the editor. Just thoroughly unprofessional report. Form letter. Very weak reports. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied even though I got a fast rejection. Took quite long for a desk rejection. One helpful (though very demanding) report, the second so-so. 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)? 1 really excellent, positive report. Editor was a bit harsh. Lengthy, in-depth reports. Paper was accepted in 1 month after the submission. The former editors at the penn state just issued reject to relieve their editorial jobs. No referee reports, just got notified I was accepted. Desk rejected in two hours with a polite email that basically said "your methodology is wrong and your question is wrong." After more than 3 months of waiting, the paper was rejected with a one-sentence referee report. Dislike for the computational results for no good reason. Signaling. Online in 2 months. 4.5 months to get the 1st-round comments, 2.5 months for 2nd round. Special issue editor started to referee himself. The paper is now much stronger. Ref reports both frank and helpful. One referee report---which is actually better than any report ever received with this paper (including those from RFS, JFQA, and MS). We agreed with most of the comments. Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. Got desk reject within 2 weeks. Bad to useless reports after a longish delay. But editor is very good, One referee report with no constructive comments. They clearly help the author to improve their paper instead of rejecting it without trying to extract the best. Very disappointing to have no word on a paper that got R&R with minor revisions in a similar ranked journal half a year later, Desk rejection after three months, editor apologized for delay, Desk accepted, sent to R&R for less than a month. 2 days from submission to desk rejection. Thank goodness that there are more journals in health economics started. Despite the rejection, referees raised valid points that we can adress to improve our paper and provided a way forward. Even though my paper was rejected, they will be useful to improve the paper prior to resubmission to another journal. One decent report. Job Market Candidates. Wish the outcome was different, but the turnaround time couldn't have been better. Accepted 4 days after resub. Brief, ignorant, editor's letter. Also the editor gave us good comments. reports show referees were serious. Suggested Ecological Economics. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. National Bureau of Economic Research. very good experiencefast and helpful comments from the co-editor and two refereesAverage time between the submission and response is about 1.5 months, well run journal. Initial response slow, then extremely quick after R&R. I declined the offer to resubmit. 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. 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". Not helpful in any way. 1.5 weeks overall, Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics. Desk rejected the same day! Such along time frame for such a poor assessment of the paper. Very fast and the submission fee is relatively cheap and even cheaper for grad students. One high quality report. Analytic number theorists: your opinion on TK's claimed disproof of the RH ? A couple nice comments from Shleifer after two days. Editor accepted the paper after we made some modifications recommended by the referee. One synthetic but straight to the point referee report, asking for very specific and reasonable corrections to the paper. Four refereed. EJM - Econ Job Market The referees responded very quickly and with excellent, high quality reports. Will submit again. Editor mentioned additional points and suggested a field journal as an alternative. It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. unreasonable report, the referee imposed a t-stat of at least 5 or 6 for an empirical study. Two thoughtful refs, one clueless. Overall smooth process. One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. You have to earn it! Was not worth waiting that long (this is an understatement). Editor from outside of the field (empirical corporate fin) did not think that my paper (ap theory) is interesting. I got two very different referee reports, one was very critical but absolutely low quality. You won't get in unless you are in the 'cabal'. I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. Not recommended. Argued lack of fit, dispite publishing a paper on the subject a few months ago, one very short useless report in seven months, 5 months + 125USD for a referee rejection with a report of about 21 lines.SHAME. Editor provided a letter with comments. Our paper is rejected after receiving one referee report. Good experience, Referees on the fence, rejection because editor does not like topic. Overall good experience. Desk rejection in one week. Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. The referees should be (far) better than the illiterate idiot they gave me! JFM is bad! The editor read the paper in great details and added a lot of comments to the referees'. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. The Editor Requate cannot distinguish between partial and general equilibrium. We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. Clearly a club journal. Placement Administrator: Stephanie Burbank 650-725-6198 sburbank@stanford.edu. two years is a bit too long, especially given that it will take more than a year before the paper appears in the journal. Bradshaw AdvisoryLondon/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds - UK. Main editor Wilson takes care of it. Editor was Barro. His comments indicate he did not have an open arm to read introduction carefully to desk reject. The Editor does appologize on the long delay saying one referee did not provide the report. Extremely bad experience with this journal. Both referees caught the major issue in the paper and offered great suggestions for moving forward. Desk rejected in 2 days. Some decent comments nevertheless. They pocketed the submission fee, though! Editor accepted it. The editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions. No response. Handling editor still rejects for unclear reasons; very frustrating, but at least fairly timely. They pointed out several issues of my paper, but they are either wrong or something that can be easily fixed. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. Really unfortunate waste of time. He even signed the letter. Desk reject in one week, some good comments from editor. One of them gave some good suggestions, but I disagree with some other points she made. Excellent and helpful comments from both referees and the editor. Very quick response from Editor (Otrok) after revision. The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. Great experience. It's time for the journal to kick out some unprofessional referees. Extremely constructive and useful comments, clearly from people from diverse backgrounds who engaged deeply with the paper (2 economists, 1 polsci). International Review of Financial Analysis. Nice letter. Editor is very efficient and professional. One year since submission, no replies to my queries shitty journal. Most efficient experience with journals ever! Waste of time. Too slow. Useful comments from editor; one really great ref. half a page report. Editor at least seemed to have given a pretty detailed reading of the paper, but was disappointed with the amount of time it took for a desk rejection. I am very surprised by this unprofessional oversight. The referee's main criticism was like "they argued that A is the main point, which is weak. The literature review was complete! Fast but shallow. Very quick response. This? 2 months with almost no answer, although the journal claims desk rejections are within days. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. Very constructive and useful for revisions. One refree report who made very useful comments that helped significantly improve the paper. not the fastest experience, but high quality comments from referees and the editor who liked the paper. One brief report. There was no mistake. Submitted the paper 11:45. Two reports of middling quality. I will never submit there again, Excellent and constructive reports. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days. 2 months for desk rejection is awkward. Good points, though, and overall a good experience. After careful consideration, the JAPE editorial team considers the paper is largely a statistics exercise. Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff. It seems that the referee did not read the paper just pinpointed assumptions he did not like to reject. However, it would probably help to read some of Joanna Lahey's work to get a sense of the state-of-art methods with these audit studies." The paper was accepted quickly after revision. Two months for desk reject -- no comments given. One short and one longer report. Quick turnaround with two okay reports. Which.a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject. Two referee reports and one report from the associate editor. Fast, but absolutely useless reports. There are several claims that are either wrong or very poorly explained (e.g., a Nash equilibrium need not be Pareto optimal!). After waiting for 6 months, I sent a polite email to the editor asking if the paper fell through the cracks. We did. Valid rejection. Not much to complain about. The paper is in between energy and finance, and the referees were more knowledgable of Energy than Finance, where our approach is more standard I'd say. Andrew Foster took a full month for a desk without a comment. get first response in 28 days. The paper was accepted few days after the revised version has been submitted. For the fee would have been nice if the Editor had written a paragraph about why they rejected. The editor (George Weebly) made inconsistent statements that did not match with the statments in the paper or from the refrees.The referees made good comments. Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. The paper was accepted after the first round revision. paper took over a month to get desk rejected because of problems with elsevier system. Very long time for first response. Good experience, even though a reject. Contact: hyejin -dot- park -at . Friendly referee with clear remarks. I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. game theoretic contribution not significant enough for publishing at this journal, three rounds of R&R (two with the referees, one with the editor); very good experience, reviews vastly improved the paper, Very fast review process (note: it was a special issue). (310) 206-1413. smooth in general. 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". Within a week with no justification. Transfer from another Elsevier journal. Got two most useless reports ever. Editor and referees seemed willing to listen to reason which encouraged me to work hard on the revision and make my case when I thought reports misguided. Less than 3 weeks for the first responses (major R&R) then accepted in less than a week. Avoid this journal by any means. One very low quality. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. Two helpful reports. Editor rejected the paper, but it was not unexpected. Referee report useless. Referee report was short and commented on halve of the paper. Editor clearly read the paper. Referees rejected. He suggested a general interest journal. 1 fair and 1 insulting referee report after waiting more than 10 months! He/she also asked unrelated information such as why the market offer two similar contracts, which is not the scope of the study. Decent reports, no complain. Weak editor. Amit Khandelwal desk rejected a RCT health paper in 2 days with no specific comment..no refund of submission fee, I do not belong to their club, Very quick turnaround (~4 days), encouraging response suggesting field journals. 1 report (from different referees) each round. Completely useless reports from referees/editor not know the methodology involved. 2 rounds of r&r. EER to toilet, the editors are clueless. Recommend. Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. He further suggested an exercise that was already illustrated in 2 figures, 1 table and described in the text! I expected better from this journal. Desk reject in 1 week. a positive experience, all in all. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. Home | Economics Job Market Rumors Three short reports. After three months, I received an email from the editor that he still hasn't received the referee report, so he assumed the referee didn't like the paper and therefore he rejects it. Pulled a weak R&R. After another three months, the paper was reject on the basis of a presumed 2nd referee report, only with a few lines, that says the paper is "well structured, well written, and deploys sound econometric methodology", but "does not add value to the existing literature". Repeated enquiries ("hey, its been a year now") have been followed by profuse apologies. No value for such a high submission fee. Decent referee report, acceptance 3 days after submitting revision. At least it was fast I guess. 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. It is definitely not worth the long wait! Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. Didn't refund the submission fee. Econ Job Market Rumors Accounting | Now Hiring Desk rejected after more than 5 months, avoid, International Review of Applied Economics, receive first response within 2 weeks. However, the editor (Mallick) kindly suggested to add papers from this journal ("As there is not citation from this journal when the journal has published several papers on this topic"). Grad student who manages inbox for ed took bad review at face value. that ?no? Nice experience!!! "Scope a bit too narrow" for Economica. Excellent review process. Note that some areas need filling in with actual pages. Recommended a more specialized journal to try next. 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful). Then one round of R&R and second referee changed his mind. more months, before rejection based on superficial comments. The editor brought in a tie breaker 3rd, who wrote a very terse reject. One useless report, and one very useful report. Excellent referees too, no nitpicking, focused on contribution. Boo! In the meantime they lied to me saying that it was out for review and that they were awaiting referee scores. AWFUL editorial work. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!! It was quick. Editor seemed to have liked the paper despite ref rejection. Was contacted again after another two years promising that my paper was to be considered, and say yes please do. But at least fast. However, once the paper was assigned to referees, the speed was normal. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. Bar-Isaak is the editor in charge (much better than others like nocke). Reviews not very helpful as it seems like psychologists reviewed it. Reports were sound and improved the paper substantially. Long and bad reviewing process. 18 days, no indication that either adstract or paper was read. 2 referee reports: first one, r&r; second one, reject and resubmit. Generic letter from editor. Overall, great experecience! Failed to notify me of rejection. one positive one negative, editor chose to reject. Big lie. Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). Made comments about Maximum Likelihood etc when I was using Method of Simuated Moments. Desk rejected in 6 days with no explanation. Engineering at HPE Not a good fit! I received my Ph.D. degree at the University of Chicago in 2022. No indication that the editor had even read the paper. Very good experience, Good experience. Lost more than 6 months for nothing. The editor said that enjoyed the paper very much but the contributon is not sufficiently broad for a general interest journal as JHR and fits better into a labour journal. "The empirical econometric novelty of the paper is not substantial enough ", Desk rejection within five days / Poor allocation of coordinating editor (microeconometrician for a time series paper), Quick desk rejection after manuscript ID was assigned. He said he liked my paper and thought it was inventive. Two very good referee reports. Claudia Sahm - Wikipedia The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. Mean and non-sense comments from one referee so that the editor had to apologize. Our claims were supported. Waited for almost a year and sent a couple of emails to the editor; promised us a response in two weeks. Long waiting for 10 months, send 3 emails to ask, reply: under review, some useful comments from ref despite recommending reject. Took 9 months for acceptance. Fair. Quick desk rejection. Editor wrote half a page and was polite. These rankings consider only the youngest economists registered with RePEc. It than took the editor (Mark Watson) another 6 months to read reports and make a decision. Very useful reports, also doing some editing. 2nd bad experience for me with this journal. The referee did not read the first sentence of the paper and was not familiar with the literature. Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. No refund. Very nice words from the editor but useless referee reports. Dual submission to a conference, the submission fee is quite high. Theory in one field sent to AE in another field doing empirics. In short, he left us only one option: not to resubmit. Unfortunately, this is my usual experience with EER. The whole process lasts less than a year from submission to acceptance. The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. Not because of the decision but due the letter content. Quick and professionsl process. Strongly recommend submitting there. Desk rejected but the co-editor read the manuscript carefully and gave substantive comments. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. Rejection reason shows Meghir did not read the paper, bad editor dull comments. Some fair comments. Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. The editor didn't bother to read through the lines of my responses to his previous reports to see how incompetent the referee is, or to look at the big picture and account also for the reports of other referees who wrote much more competent reports and had recommended acceptance several rounds earlier. Although the paper got accepted, the quality of the comments and the editor's comments were beyond laughable and actually really make me regret having it sent there but it is too late. Very helpful reports and overall a smooth process. One very good report, another one heavily biased against methodology, yet helpful. The editor's comments show that he is totally uninformed about the literature. Editor gave me chance to convince other referee. KS rejected based on AE's brief report; AE comments somewhat useful but a tad unfair (main criticism applies to many papers publ. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. Dest rejected in 2 days. Two excellent referee reports. Will not consider it again. Stay away! Awesome experience. Readers familiar with the operation of the market can proceeddirectlytothe"data"subsectionbelow. Basically if you don't make everyone happy on the first round you stand no chance at this journal. Very long wait. In all the rejection was fair. Very fast process but no comment from the Associate Editor. The status has been "Pending Editor Triage" for 10 months. Very low quality report. It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. Emailed the editor at JPE for a brief explanation of why the paper was desk rejected so that I could improve it. My first submission in AE and it is the best experience ever. Comments were helpful. Desk rejection within two weeks. The referee asked for revision but Barnett or an AE rejected after I emailed them after 6 months. Total turn around time was about 40 days. Helpful referee reports. Due to a "typographical error" in sending me an email, I had to wait an extra month (and after I emailed asking for a status update) to learn of the rejection - wasting time I could have spent submitting it to another journal. Poorly managed journal. No feedback and no useful suggestion in the rejection letter. Think about submitting again. 2nd round 2 months. Editor clearly read the paper and claimed a referee did too. Great process, fast and fair. Nice experience despite a rejection. Rejected with a 1-page AE report, after almost 3 months. Rejected within 24hrs by Katz. Complete waste of 10 months and $200. Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor.