The third was R&R, and was more substantive. Worthless garbage report, no redeeming value. Handling editor still rejects for unclear reasons; very frustrating, but at least fairly timely. The process was fair, with good pace. Should have read the comments here about how badly run this journal is. Great outcome. The editor (Hongbin Li) rejects because of lack of fir with the journal's mission. No refund. Overall a good experience that will help the paper! It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. Great process, fast and fair. Main reason for this is that they assigned a different associate editor on the second round which I find highly unusual. Very good experience. Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. Suggested some other journals. At least it was fast. Wonderful experience overall. Editor just pointed at reports and made no obvious effort to think about the paper. Totally automated review process; one referee carps even with demonstrably invalid reason and you have no right even to contact the editor. 1 Referee provided useful comments that improved the paper. Even disappointing outcome, three constructive reports, one of them extremely helpful. Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. Editor then said with a quick/thorough response and no need to go back to refs. Commented that something we are doing is not correct, while all the papers in the field are doing the same. One ref suggested I send it to JPE before trying places like EJ or ReStat. First round of referee reports obtained in another 2 months. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. Finance Job Rumors (489,493) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,790) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,019) China Job Market (103,530) Industry Rumors (40,349) Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. Contribution too small. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. Ex: CDF was derived to construct the likelihood of a discrete choice model, a reviewer writes the author does not use the derived CDF. Great experience in general! 2.5 months review. Submitted the paper 11:45. Two horribly low quality reports. Waited about a month for the first decision, just a few days for the (very minor) revisions. Just thoroughly unprofessional report. Editor rejected. But the editor read the paper, and recommends Econometrica or JET or TE, Katz needed less time to skim the paper and offer a few good comments than I needed to write a one-sentence cover letter, It is a Finance paper. A long wait but not very helpful comments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. No further comment from the editor. Or rather, the editor is very lazy to follow up on the reports. Quick turnaround with two okay reports. Andrew deJong The Effect of Common Ownership on Pricing: Evidence from the Airline Industry . The report had a few good notes but none that really seemed to disqualify the paper from getting an R&R. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again, Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees. Apparent that editor read the paper. Positive feedback from the editor. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. 1 short and useless report, 1 incompetent (was the reason the paper was rejected) - the referee could not understand that his major criticism was trivial and was dedicated one line in introduction, 1 favorable report. One very good referee report (I feel he has pubs in AER, JPE) and one useless report (he doesn't know anything about business economics). Desk Reject took 4 months. Excellent and rapid process, with clear comments and instructions from referees and editor. This page collects information about the academic mathematics job market: positions, short lists, offers, acceptances, etc. Skip Navigation. Desk rejected within two weeks. The new editors did a good job, Just a joke, 2 years of "under review" for nothing, two useful comments with one minor, another some work, Good comments, nice time management from the editor, efficient process. Good experience. Helpful and fair referee reports. Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. Weird editor pushing for a change in the results. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. R&R in two months. Editor: "Far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal". AE followed majority reports without additional insights. Useful and encouraging comments from referees, who appeared very interested in improving the paper and offering helpful suggestions to do so. 2 rejects, 1 R&R. 6 months to receive half-assed & useless referee reports and request for major revisions. While the goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. Poor experience, will not submit again. Professional reports. After 14 month a desk rejection arrived. Although desk-rejected, I am very satisfied. only one report (quite helpful). Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. After resubmitting, accepted in 2 weeks without going to referees. Very good experience. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list. Invites for 2nd round zoom interviews sent today. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. Perhaps the worst experience ever. Referee didn't think the contribution is significant enough, so straight reject. This journal is a scam. Will submit again. Resubmitted and the editor rejected the paper on the basis of concerns that were never raised before in the process (and are incorrect IMHO). Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. Rejected but with excellent reports. The referee reports were good. Expected better, expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision. Good editor. Very kind letter from the editor. Referee rejected but with very exhaustive and interesting comments, only one report, but it was fair and can help me to improve the paper, Reports are thoughtful and useful for revisions, it took them 11 months to reject with one referee report of about half a page. Editor agreed with them. 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." Terrible, very short referee reports. It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. The referee was clearly trying to protect his own paper on a related topic; half of the bullet points referred to that paper. The editor rejected the manuscript without any useful comments. Desk rejected in 10 days. The paper was with the journal for five months and we got a rejection with only one referee report with 5 bullet points (two of which were about typos). Very fair. two weeks. 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. Generic letter saying the paper was not fit to general interest journal. When we chased, we received detailed referee reports and R&R quickly, but were given just 2 weeks to make massive changes to the paper - we withdrew and used comments to publish elsewhere. Editor agreed. apologize.? Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. Both referees caught the major issue in the paper and offered great suggestions for moving forward. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. Two weeks for R&R. Referees did not show good knowledge of the subject. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. Fair points raised, although I would have preferred a R&R naturally. Nice comments and feedback from Associate Editor. 6 months was a lot to wait for one good report though Good feedback. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. The whole process took about a little bit more than a year, which is very good. Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not). Excellent ref report. Apparently the assigned coeditor left and paper got stuck. report and a couple of pretty good ones. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. Insane process and utterly inexperienced referee. Should I choose Stanford, Columbia, or UChicago for an undergraduate The editor read the paper and provided useful advice on how to improve it. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and less than two months in the second round. The editor suggested an alternative outlet, which was where the paper eventually got published.

Cook County Sheriff Civil Process, Why Did Felipe Mejia Leave Biggerpockets, Examples Of Antithesis In Atticus Closing Argument, Articles E