econ job market rumors wiki
Efficient process and fast decision. 19. A bit slow for a 2000 words paper. Much quicker response than suggestsed. No refund. The paper was accepted after I incorporated all suggestions in R&R. Editor and co-editor are extremely nice and supportive. Fast process and 2 helpful ref. On the whole very good experience. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. Took 3 rounds for editor to realize terrible referee was a crackpot. The reports were good and helpful. "Although interesting and competently executed, your study does not contain a sufficient theoretical or empirical innovation that would meet the very high standards of the EER." A serious fraud: Fake JF and RFS conditional acceptances, "Leftover women" problem hits US dating market, New "Family Ruptures" AER / NBER is rip-off of obscure paper, Schiraldi (LSE) and Seiler (Stanford) false coauthors of AER publication, 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). The rejection was fine but took too long for a desk reject. 6 months to receive half-assed & useless referee reports and request for major revisions. several days. Placement Director - Alessandro Pavan Email: alepavan@northwestern.edu. Editor mentioned additional points and suggested a field journal as an alternative. 2-pages report, few suggestions. The process had only one negative side; the reviewers implicitly asked to cite their works. Very, very disappointed! At least turnaround time was fast: 14 days. Pretty useless referee reports. Submission fee refund. So if your topic is not within this field, the desk rejection is much more likely. 1 report suggesting to cite the Editor's work and speaking about things outside of the scope of the paper. Stay away from this journal if you do not have a connection from inside. Desk rejected as outside the scope of the journal. Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports. Manuscript number assigned at 10AM, rejected by 7PM. Referee reports were of high quality. Response was less than two months from submission -- super quick. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. Editor noted that paper of an associate editor was not cited but did not mention the name of the paper. Despite disappointing turnout, reports were good with useful and specific suggestions on ways to improve the paper. Ref. Offers and negotiating. Receive reports from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. Terrible report. Lasted 4 days! Referee reports were lenthy and very useful. Referee reports were incredibly useful and significantly improved the paper. is ?so ?poor? good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. Overall good experience. Water Research Manager (Project Manager) Hassan Afrouzi Assistant Professor of Economics Columbia University I wish my coauthors would not be too sad being rejected. Useless reports. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. no negative comments, just say that the contribution is not big enough for Econometrica, which is completely understandable. 1 positive and 1 negative report - Editor rejected. Then took about 14 months to be come out in print. Some valid points, but overall Kahn's criticism was thin. Overall good experience. Weird editor pushing for a change in the results. The referee reports were crap (minor points without really saying anything about the research question, the methodology and the results of the paper). This journal is a scam! Too slow. Two weeks. The editor decided major revision. 20 months to acceptance since first submission. Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days. Pretty terrible experience. Receive desk rejection in 24 hours, editor read the paper and suggested to top field journal. Formal letter in less than 10 days returning my manuscript. Clearly there were 2 initial refs: 1 suggested R&R, the other suggested rejection. Quite clear they didn't bother to read manuscript. rejection after 9 months without any useful comments. Response time was decent. Accepted, no referee reports. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. Four line referee report written in a hurry before deadline and before ref obviously had to jet off on holiday. Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. I agree with most of the comments, but the bar for publication was exceptionally high, considering his relatively low position in the journal ranking. 2 referee reports: 1 very detailed recommending revisions; other useless. Two referee reports, one critical, one encouraging. be viewed as too specific. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience. One rejected outright, one offered R&R. Emailed the editor at JPE for a brief explanation of why the paper was desk rejected so that I could improve it. Until the 1970s, junior economics hiring was largely by word of mouth. Referee comments were pretty minor. Repeated enquiries ("hey, its been a year now") have been followed by profuse apologies. Not sure what the editor(s) are doing at this journal but whatever it is, it is not quality overseeing and editing of papers. Desk Reject took 4 months. get first response in 28 days. Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud. Took 7 months to give 1 referee report with just 5 lines. If you don't have that - expect to be desk rejected. Referees did not understand the contribution of the paper. It seems they rushed to reject it. Worthless garbage report, no redeeming value. Good reports. Note that some areas need filling in with actual pages. Editor made some quick comments and recommended 3 journals a tier below. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. Slow. Both referees were concerned about identification, but did not suggest how to fix. I really appreciated the clarity the editor provided in helping to navigate the referee reports. Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. Within a week with no justification. They pocketed the submission fee, though! The referee completely misunderstood a *very* basic primary school model and then went on to criticize and complain about the empirical results. Revised carefully and resent, then they sent to another editor and another reviewer whose report contradicted the first and was very vague. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. One was good and one was particularly bad with a lot of non-english expressions. four reports. They raised concerns that very literally addressed in section heads. Two month for two detailed reports. No value for such a high submission fee. A grad student could do better! Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. One almost non-existent referee report (basically two lines just saying the paper is not broad enough), one very detailed and overall positive report. After that, the R&R only took 10 days and we also tackled a minor comment from the editor. The reports were largely useless. The paper was published in 2016, Decent referee reports that indeed improve the paper. Good experience. Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. These rankings consider only the youngest economists registered with RePEc. Highly recommended. Competent referee reports, although one of them extremely hostile. Editor from outside of the field (empirical corporate fin) did not think that my paper (ap theory) is interesting. Will submit again. Terrible editor. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Students on the Job Market - NYU Stern - New York University Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. Massive waste of time and money. Fit justification. The referee asked for revision but Barnett or an AE rejected after I emailed them after 6 months. I got the referee reports after 2.5 months from submission. Editor didn't even read the paper and rejected it. No indication that the paper was read. 2 very constructive reports, speedy process after resubmission, 2 useless reports by refs who barely skimmed the paper, one completely mistook the tested var & misreported it in his comments, editor's comments (Bill Collins) were smug and obnoxious but shallow, Very disappointing. Complete waste of 10 months and $200. completely ?misread? His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting Decision based on 1 one-paragraph review that didn't refer to anything specific in the paper. Comments are not useful at all. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). No comments whatsoever, in an un-signed email with 2 generic sentences, Desk rejected after one week with kind words from co-editor and recommended field journal, Poor justification, pure taste by Debraj Ray. City of PhoenixPhoenix - USA, Senior Analyst - Economics Department I declined the offer to resubmit. Bad experience, there was a long wait of mroe than 10 months to get 2 referee reports that did not like the the paper (but not so sure why). The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. 2nd very short and useless, referee probably spent 10 mins on it. Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. Editor decided to reject it. Good editing process. 1 very good referee reports, 1 mediocre, editor was nice. Efficient handling by editor. Useful comments from the editor who had to stand in for the unresponsive second referee. Desk reject in 1 week. Reports submitted within one month. 2 week desk reject. The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. Will not consider again. One obviously senior who doesn't care, openly says didn't read some parts. 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"). Reasonably quick. Will not submit here in the future. Journal. Very weak reports. When do I give up? 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". Worst experience I have ever had. They like the paper but the contribution not enough for Econometrica. AWFUL editorial work. paper rejected after one round of R&R due to extremely negative attitude of the one referee. To summarize, this reviewer apparently thought he had better English than Shakespeare. Expected a bit better. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. One week to accept. Reject based on a priori feeling of the reviewer with no scientific arguments but rather personal perception of her/his reading. Said they would refund the submission fee, which is nice. That sounds fair to me. Will not submit here again. Even better input by editor. Referees didnt understand shape of indifference curves, confused standard errors for standard deviations, ignored figures in main text while misinterpreting figures from the appendix. Very good referee reports. Finished revision in 1 month and once resubmitted took them 2 weeks to accept. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. Otherwise, great experience. Rejection after 3 days. Very slow, 4 months waiting of the revise and resubmit, it's now two months since I submitted in and no word. Very good experience all around. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. Initial response for R&R was quite fast, but the second response after the resubmission took quite a long time, and it seems that the paper was just sitting at the editor's desk for more than a month before they were assigned back to the referees. But the decision was unfair. However, he suggested that I submit my paper to a theory journal. half a page report. Very efficient journal, 3 very helpful reports from a coeditor and 2 referees. Paper denounced an error on widely cited paper (unfairly comparing bootstrap vs asypmtotic theory with a nonpivot statistic!). Got accepted after 2nd round. 3rd review was pending. wanted to reject from the outset. "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". The paper is now much stronger. 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). Handled by the new co-editor. Some interesting comments, but not much. Waited 6 months for one report, from which it was clear that the referee hadn't even read the paper properly. Editor Chandra rejected with one ref report. Two days between handing in the revision and acceptance. Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. After waiting for 6 months received one crap report which is absolute garbage! Did get a field journal suggestion and a refund of submission fees. The third was R&R, and was more substantive. Fairly helpful referee report. Two reports with mixed view. The rejection came with a useless referee report. That was disappointing. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. Desk-rejected in 3 days. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. Went on to publish in a better journal. Waiting was attrociious and final rejection not properly justified since reviewers went AWOL. Poor, self serving. One not very helpful/professional report. Annoying! I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know very quick. Thank goodness that there are more journals in health economics started. Although my manuscript wa based on stochastic processes, editor rejected it since they were not expert in applied econometrics. Withdrew July 31, 2017. Decent referee reports, good turnaround time. 3 rounds then rejected by editor, paper was improved by addressing reviewers' comments, eventually accepted at RFS, Cam Harvey gave useless report; obvious outgoing editor is obvious. Would submit again. Who are these people?? Appreciate fast review and efficient process. One referee, although clearly in favour of publication, asked a good deal of revisions and it took us 4 motnhs to respond so most of the delay may have been our fault. I withdraw my submission after 15 months of submission and no answer from the editor. In a typical year, every MIT Economics PhD graduate finds a job. reports show referees were serious. Split referees, Adda came down on the side of the negative ones. Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper, no longer a serious all purpose journal imho; "desk reject" after 6 mos on the basis of style in the abstract, Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded, One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end, Terrible experience. 10 days in total!!! Clearly scanned the paper, deemed not general enough, and recommended other outlets. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. Search by name. Quick response. 1 very useful report and associate editor comments. Was a longshot. Armstrong is so much better than Hermalin 6 months for the first R&R (2 referee reports plus a very detailed report from the editor), then 3 months for the 2nd R&R, then the paper was accepted. Fairly long wait though. Took a little over a month for the desk reject and no refunds. After 3 weeks this would have been acceptable. It has been about 16 months now. 2.5 are very positive. Resubmitted in 2 days, accepted after resubmission in 10 days. Desk reject after two weeks. Referee said there is a mistake in the proof. Desk rejected but the co-editor read the manuscript carefully and gave substantive comments. one very weird report, asking to cite an unknown WP, from a PhD student One R&R with minor rev, one inscrutable report, and one unfair report with incorrect claims. Bad report, condescending. It took 1 year from submission to acceptance, but the journal was quick, I took to long to do the revisions. I published my article in a very decent journal later. Desk rejected within two weeks. Overall very fast process. The editor was fair and provided reasons why the paper was rejected. Two referee reports: one decent, one poor. A journal to avoid. Not belonging to the club implies rejection. Katz rejected in less than 24 hours with some comments. Desk rejection in 6 minutes with a "pretended" letter, which could be used for any paper. A complete discrage. 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. Recommend. One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. Two very poor referee reports. 2 good, one grumpy referee report. A bit long but very helpful referee report. The lack of referee reports makes me think it is the latter. very fast response and useful comments from a referee. Detailed reports, 2 negative, 1 positive; nice letter from co-editor. desk reject, but editor basically provided a referee report, desk reject - generic letter from editor who did not like the topic. 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.
Does Lupo Die In La Reina Del Sur,
Periods After Salpingectomy,
Articles E
econ job market rumors wiki