econ job market rumors wiki

OK process, but some reports were useless. Desk rejected after 40 days. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. The ME provided helpful comments on top of the two reviewers'. Not easy - but straightforward. Rejected after 1st R&R. Fast turnaround, I'm very happy with the experience. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. Editor seemed to have liked the paper despite ref rejection. Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal. Fair referee reports, ref. Desk rejected after more than 6 months without any review or comments. Great experience! main message was that paper is a poor fit. Department of Geography. Some not so fair. Still, was super fast and allows to improve the paper. Reject based on a priori feeling of the reviewer with no scientific arguments but rather personal perception of her/his reading. Resubmitted within the same day. plus for a quick turnaround. Most inefficient handling ever. Good report. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Great experience - referee and editor very helpful. 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. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. While harping on the issue, provided no insights as to how one can go about it. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. Two referee reports: 1 seemed to miss basics of the paper and didn't provide useful insight/comments and the other was exhaustive, insightful, and useful moving forward. two years is a bit too long, especially given that it will take more than a year before the paper appears in the journal. Desk rejected in 14 days, just long enough to get hopes up, with boilerplate "not general interest.". Do not send a paper to BE JM, Very bad experience. One referee waited for 182 days to submit his/her report as there was a time stamp on the report. Editor decided based on 1 report. Rejected for not general interest, brief comments by editor and a "finance scholar". It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Revision accepted for publication in one week. After waiting for 9 months, I sent an email to the editor asking about the paper status. Good experience, Revision accepted by editor within two days after re-submission. Very efficient process. Desk rejected in a month. Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. Will never submit here. Desk reject after 2 months! They have not released it, sorry. Was pleased with the process, besides the rejection. 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. The latex formatting at the end was the most painful part. Anti-intellectual reasoning. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable commentvery well run journal, fast and no submission fee! 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. The editor, Gideon Saar, was lazy and did not read the paper. Editor read the paper and gave helpful feedback. Awful experience! Helpful reports and suggestions by the editor. One of the referees helped me structure the paper nicely. 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. Editor did not intervene and kept hiding throughout. Focus of decision appeared to be on the institutional context of the paper rather than considering the economics. Dislike for the computational results for no good reason. I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Rejected by editor. The final version of the proof was more elegant as a result, I am very appreciative of the reviewers and the editor. Editor sat for two months on completed referee report and rejected without adding any comments. Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data. Referee cites one crucial assumption to kill the paper, but the paper does not make that assumption, and clearly explains it. nice experience. 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. One of the best run journals in macro. Valid rejection. Got accepted in three days. Terrible editor. Though the paper had been to several before so by the time it got to IRLE it was pretty polished. Submitted to conference edition. Took quite long for a desk rejection. Process a bit slow. Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. Very pleasant experience. frustrating, because paper not assigned to the editor who works in my field. Editor obviously read over the paper and gave a couple of helpful comments. However, he suggested that I submit my paper to a theory journal. Instead, they should've looked at B." desk reject in 2.5 hrs? Didn't fit journal aims well enough - very courteous rejection with suggestions on where to try next, the issue did not fit no justifications. At least they are faster than their reputation. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. Barro says not sufficiently general interest, and advises to try a field journal instead. Super efficient handling by Prof. Sarte. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. However comments from the negative one are the most detailled and helpful. 2 months between submission and final decision! But at least it was quick. Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor. Received the standard 50% fee refund (wow, so useful), Generic desk reject w/o further information, Desk rejected after about 1 month. Although our paper is rejected by the reviewer, I would be very happy to read the referee report. 1 was more positive and ref. Good experiences --- fast (1 month for both the first and R&R round), good reports, editor is also very helpful. No refund. One report useless, read only the first quarter of the paper. The editor also read the paper and gave very good comments and suggestions. Actually, 57 months in total. 2 rounds (1 major R and 1 minor R), one report each time, very fast acceptance after minor R round (less than a month), Fast and to the point reports with reasonable requests for r&r. One of the referee reports was sloppy, showing inaccurate reading. Very good experience. One guy who had no clue, the other who had good insight into our paper. Complete waste of time.. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), Reports not very helpful, paper not in journal scope. Very fast and efficient. Very helpful reports and overall a smooth process. 3 years for a desk rejection, after sending them at least 6 emails and filing a complain with the publisher. Not a good fit! Bad experience. Economist 64dd. Referee recommends conditional accept but AE strongly against publication. Job Market. The editor did give us advice to split the paper in two, although he didn't really provide a justification for rejection. Editor is a insecure joke. Referee reports OK. cannot complaint about reports but could have been faster, bad reports, of the type "i don't like it". Strongly recommend submitting there. Good report and conditionally accepted with minor revisions. In hindsight, submitted the paper too prematurely. Not for the faint-hearted. Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. Decent referee reports. Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. Desk Reject took 4 months. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. Some reviewers disappeared after the first review, the editors could't even find an alternative, and the comments were not assessed critically by the editors due to an editorial change. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. 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 editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions. But it does move my prior of affiliation doesnt matter, just the paper (yes, a prior that no one here seems to have). AE did an awesome job. I feel that mediocre editors are too scared to consider papers unless at least one of the authors is a big shot. best submission experience. Long wait. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. Desk reject in a week. very efficient process and useful reports from editor and referess. Super fast and clear feedback. Much faster than last experience with the journal, same result. Moderately useful reports. R&R only takes one week. The other referee was serious however. Reflects really poorly on the journal to keep this guy. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. Good experience. editorial team do not respond to email. Two rounds of R&R. Very tough journal with very extensive comments from 3 refs. Editor is bonkers, he said article was outside scope of journal.when it was clearly regiona/urban economics article. Wilson inform me, on average, EI first decision is in 67 days, but my six months delay is not due to neglect (YEAH RIGHT! Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. 2 reports and 2 rounds. I suppose if your work is primarily empirical then you'd better do something that's close to the editor's personal interest, otherwise there will always be the criticism that you need more theory. Excellent Editorial Comments. Recently Announced. Use widely accepted methods. Fast desk reject (Ciccone), after few days. fluent ?in? Paper rejected by editor. Generous comments from editor and referees, lenghty referee reports; rejection because of one referee even though I discuss his point. We do not need dumb editors!! Referee didn't buy identification strategy. Not to say, the shortcoming is an accepted norm till one finds a better way. Both referees really spent time on the paper and gave lots of suggestions.So did the editor. Only one report. only one report (quite helpful). The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. Two referee reports were really good. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. Two reports are suggestive but the other one was a low-quality. A lot to revise, but editor gave only 2 months. Very good experience. 1 report (from different referees) each round. I suspect a tight club. One unprofessional and clueless referee. Ended up being a better paper. May have a good chance at a higher ranked outlet but if considered speed and diversification then it was a good and correct decision to submit here. UCLA Economics. There was supposed to be a third referee report that was not received, which may have been the reason for the time between submission to decision. Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. The low-quality report won out Reject with two solid reports. One positive report, one mixed and one negative. Then one round of R&R and second referee changed his mind. The referees and the editor took ridic, Editor: Heckman; high quality reports, two of the reports were helpful and constructive. Useful reports. Much quicker response than suggestsed. The second one is more critical and seems to be angry by the fact that I'm not citing his work. Good reviews by the referee and the AE. 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. One very good report, one OK. One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal. Job Market. Great experience. It's the kind of disappointment that makes you stop caring about research. Helpful and competent editor who made clear what were the important points to address. Professional editor. Expected better, expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision. Placement Administrator: Stephanie Burbank 650-725-6198 sburbank@stanford.edu. Also very fast. Process was a complete disgrace. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. Good comments from 2 referees, the other did not appear to have read the paper well. After fully addressing the reviewers' comments at each round, the article got rejected in the third round with a totally "ex nihilo" issue risen by one of the reviewers, who never mentioned the issue before. Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. Also suggested 3 very good field Journal. Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. We saw no referee report and only had to deal with editor comments/suggestions. Long wait, decision was communicated with a delay of 3 months after reports had been received. Two reports were reasonable and one report was very low quality. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. Tough reports that required a lot of work but ultimately improved the paper significantly. Rejected in 24 hrs, no reason given. Quick desk reject after less than 24 hours without comments, annoying given the submission fee. The editor had read the paper and provided guidance. Almost 8 months to acceptance, despite Revised version submitted after 5months. Fair referee reports, but I had to wait pretty long. Editor read the paper and outlined clear (and fair) reasons for rejection. Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School, Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO), Majewska (TSE), Seibel (Zurich), Deng (UMD), Lesellier (TSE), Vanhapelto (TSE), Suzuki (PSU), Leroutier (SSE), Lorentzen (BI Oslo), Guigue (CREST), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Bou Sleiman (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Moreno-Maldonado (CUNEF), Khalifa (AMSE), Kondziella (IIES), Merilinen (ITAM); see https://www.helsinkigse.fi/events/category:job-talk, Assistant/Associate/Full Professor - Environmental Economics, Song (USC), Kwon (Cornell), Sileo (Georgetown), Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Hyuk-soo Kwon (Cornell University), Sean McCrary (University of Pennsylvania), Gretchen Sileo (Georgetown), Stephanie Weber (Yale University), Sadhika Bagga (UT Austin), Ricardo Marto (University of Pennsylvania), Martin Souchier (Stanford University). One of those cases where the paper though rejected improved significantly as a result. Think I got lucky. Very efficient. Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. Very poor referee reports. The reviews were short and gave some good feedback. One good referee report. Good experience. Will not consider it again. Second report little use. We did. Very helpful referee report. Good handling by the editor. Editor acknowledge that it was a bad draw. Still took 3 months. Fasstest acceptation ever after R&R: 1 day! Fair decision. Desk rejected in 25 minutes. Over half a year for response from one referee who a) had no problems with the methodology, b) liked the writing, and c) thought it had a novel contribution. Reports only partly helpful. Very good reports that help us to improve the paper a lot. Editor rejected after R&R without providing any referee report (note: journal name has now changed to International Journal of Health Economics and Management, International Journal of Industrial Organization.