It took 5 months to get a desk reject, with a polite letter from the editor that the paper would be a good fit for a field journal. Slow. Long process. Reasonable comments from the referee, extremely fast and efficient process. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Editor was changed, asked for electronic resubmission and paper got rejected. Rejection without arguments/referee report. 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. Not enough novelty. Very professionalthe referee reports were fine but rather tough given the quality of the journal, 3 rounds, all comments addressed, rejected because 1 reviewer did not read the last version. One report only, not very helpful, relatively slow for just one report. Very good experience. There is only one report called review number 2! Helpful editor. Annoying! interesting and polite reports. 3 reports: 2 of them really good, one mediocre. Decent referee reports. Which is BS because paper on the same topic was published a couple of months earlier in EJ. Boilerplate "contribution not significant enough", two months pretty long for a desk reject, but can't really complain about the desk reject itself because the paper is not so great. The whole process was fast and streamlined. 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). moderately helpful but whole process took too long. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. Very good referee reports. One of those cases where the paper though rejected improved significantly as a result. 7 weeks. Quick response. Quick turnaround, helpful comments, will submit again, Desk rejected in less than a week. For three months the editor has not assigned referees! Lastly withdrew for good after another six months. 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. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. Fast process. Ever. 7 months for 1 decent report and 1 poor report. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. European Review of Agricultural Economics. low quality and very short referee report Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text. Took a while, but great experience overall. Two very useful ref reports in the first round. The paper was triying to test unit roots on capacity utilisation for a cross-section of countries to test some macro models; so it did stuff that even a Master's can understand. Great experience. Desk rejected by Katz within 24 hours. They are also very slow! Fair enough. In any case, the paper is not a good match for the JIE, both because it is highly technical and (more importantly) because it is more of a trade theory paper than an IO paper. some useful comments, but clear that the referee didn't spend a lot of time on the paper, nor take much effort to follow bits of it that weren't conventional. Good reports. Unhelpful, rambling. Pok Sang Lam rejected with few comments. Standard comments, paper's topic just not good enough. Formulaic letter. Only 1 report, but a fair assessment of the paper. Very poor referee reports. others ref reports okay. Wonderful experience overall. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. Four months for a desk reject! the? Referee only comments on the first half of the paper. thorough but not brutal enough - the paper was not very a contribution at all at the time and needed a much harsher rejection, seriously, referee reports were very thorough and demonstrated expertise, rejections were fair - just wish I would have gotten these reviewers the first time I submitted the paper. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. Process a bit slow. Overall good experience. Amazing experience. Unfortunately, this is my usual experience with EER. Rather pleasant experience. This particular group controlling urban economics now will not let any differing view go through AER and JUE. Received the standard 50% fee refund (wow, so useful), Generic desk reject w/o further information, Desk rejected after about 1 month. Great experience. One report after 18 months. Less than two months for very minor revision request. Some of the people at my lower 2 weeks for a desk rejection, editor actually read the paper and commented on it before deciding it is more suited to a field journal. Could've desk-rejected instead of two useless referee reports. General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,806) Micro Job Rumors (15,245) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,027) China Job Market (103,534) One of the best outlet for phd students. useless reports referees didn't seem to read the paper and appeared not to be experts .. Desk-rejected in 7 days: "the paper lacks sufficient political economy content to be appropriate". Desk rejected in 14 days, just long enough to get hopes up, with boilerplate "not general interest.". a 2 paragraph referee report that was not particularly helpful - at least the turnaround time was fast - might as well have been a desk rejection, Very low quality reports. Not all theory papers are welcomed. The associate editor however provided some useful comments which helped us improve the paper. One positive (R&R) and other two had valid concerns I could have clarified better ex-ante. game (can anyone confirm this?)? Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud. The editor suggested an alternative outlet, which was where the paper eventually got published. Overall experience is good. Desk rejected, but after consultation with a referee who provided a mini-report. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. Very quick process. 6 months to desk reject with little reason. Editor just pointed at reports and made no obvious effort to think about the paper. A very good experience. The reviews were short and gave some good feedback. 2 minutes passed between receiving editor name an receiving desk rejection. Very efficient process. Suggest field journal. One unprofessional and clueless referee. But at least fast. Referee seemed have little idea about the field or didn't read my 7 page paper. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Got accepted after 2nd round. Recommend trying better journal. Fair enough reasons why, but would have appreciated less time. Note that the shorter the time span considered, the more likely the ranking is going to be spurious. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy, Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript. Desk Reject in a Week but it did come with two pages of notes and questions that should help the paper. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!! Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. Wasted 17 months. Professional co-editor and referee. 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful). Rejected in 24 hrs, no reason given. Some useful comments from his friend. Fast and clean. Worst experience ever nearly one year just to hear "not much new, therefore reject" 100 bucks for nothing. solution? Took altogether 8 months to acceptance. Quite fast I'd say, but comments were simple. Awfully slow for a desk reject, but at least the editor gave a couple of helpful comments and it was clear he'd read the paper with care. Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. topics should probably be closely related to banking. Professional reports. reports show referees were serious. Have emailed for status to no avail. Good referees but long process: 3 rounds /16 months, Very hard to respond but comments significantly improved the paper, Took a long time, but referee reports were very useful and significantly improved the paper. Keep asking to submit to other conferences/journals RCFS/RAPS. Should have read the comments here about how badly run this journal is. Stay away from this journal if you do not have a connection from inside. Boston University Department of Economics. Appreciate fast review and efficient process. No regrets, Good reports, not extremely helpful, but good. Good comments from refs that really helped the paper. The editor had read the paper and provided guidance. After waiting for 9 months, I sent an email to the editor asking about the paper status. Based on the comments of one more referee with few points, he rejects. one positive, one flat reject review, the editor decided to reject. after more than 3 months still "with editor". Seems like a sound reason. Probably he sent the paper to referees because he couldn't desk reject it, but his mind was made-up before hand. Desk rejection with no comments in 3 weeks. No ref reports, 1 sentence from editor. 2 months, the article is still under internal review DPR had my manuscript for over a year, and never even got it under review. Withdrew my paper after 8 months of no contact from Editor, referee, etc. Sometimes Batten took a long time to make a decision after the reviews were completed, but he was fair. So do keep an eye on the paper and cotnact the editor if necessary. desk rejected after more than 2 months, very generic motivation (try a field journal), they took the submission fees and thanked me a lot for the payment! Desk rejected in 8 days. Good comments from 2 referees, the other did not appear to have read the paper well. It was a long process but the editor and referees were genuinely helpful. Submitted in 2012. two years is a bit too long, especially given that it will take more than a year before the paper appears in the journal. One referee liked the paper but had doubts about the Y variable (kiss of death); other referee turned in a three page report but missed the point of the paper completely (while asking us to delete the explanation which would have answered his questions). No evidence that the editor read even the abstract. Thought already in literature. A shame the editor sided with the second. Too long waiting time. Secondary: Applied Macroeconomics and International Economics. Rejected within 4 days with a decent explanation. Katz rejected my paper before I was done submitting it; suspect time travel. Very good referee reports and useful suggestions from the AE, 1 very good referee report, 1 completely useless. "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." The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. It took the editor 3 months to write two paragraphs and reject. Two very good reports, one probably written by the editor. Editor was great (helpful, insightful, truthful). Very good and useful referee reports. Two high quality reports. Got rejection after 4 months. Very slow, but fair process overall. The senior is useless as s/he was not happy that the paper is against an established theory. This post is a continuous work in . Quick desk reject and no comments of substance (form letter) but no cost of submission. 2/2 referee reports were positive and suggested R&R because the contribution was significant enough. No comment from the editor,ridiculous journal. The closures follow the consequences of the 2020 BLM-Antifa riots that . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Close callEditor gave the benefit-of-a-doubt and requested revisions, one good referee, the other not very good, helpful editor, overall, pretty smooth process (always easier to say when the paper ends up being published).
buffalo pizza shipped nationwide,
accident on bear valley road today,
national merit scholarship finalists 2021 list,