econ job market rumors wiki

Overall, a very fair process. 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. Worst experience so far in my career. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Good helpful report asking for few corrections. 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". Excellent experience. Article was rejected but the comments were generally helpful and thoughtful. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Which editor handles the paper mattered. rejection after 9 months without any useful comments. Would submit again. Editor probably didn't go beyond the abstract. 1 week. Finally withdraw. 1 reject and 1 R&R. apologize.? Fast editorial process. Bad experience. All queries tough but manageable - only difficulty was having 3 refs say sometimes contradictory things. Fast desk reject. Time to accept less than 1 year. But I understand it may not have been a good fit. He made the most stupid argument to reject the paper. In an attempt to argue that young women and girls, many in their teens, voluntarily contracted themselves into sex work at the so-called "comfort stations" set up by the Imperial Japanese military during World War II, the article contains a . One very good report, 6 pages long. Editor provided useful feedback and a subsequent version of the manuscript was sent out for peer review. Overall, it was a smooth process. Lasted 4 days! Incredible experience: one of the referee report told us that a working paper was published on almost the same subject (and justifies our rejection) but this working paper was published 5 months after our submission ! He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. Two and a half months for a desk reject for lack of fit. We may have been aiming too high. Soon it became like a bar that doesn't kick out any assholes and now its a collection of assholes who happen to do economics. I stopped reading after that). Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California (USA) Nice letter. One positive review, one negative, editor took the side of the negative. 1 R&R round. About 14 weeks from submission to referee reject. rejected by editor, saying should submit to other similar journal. Recommended field journals. One Referee wrote nonsense, the other was good, the editor added nonsense. Skip Navigation. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. No response. quick and clear communication with editor. The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. Good report, positive rec. "Paper not of general interest, try sending to a field journal". Two helpful reports. One reviewer is helpful, another needs to retake econometrics course. he clearly read the paper. Editor then agreed. Reports were ok, but total process took way too long. The editor provided one. Bad experience. There are several claims that are either wrong or very poorly explained (e.g., a Nash equilibrium need not be Pareto optimal!). Editor and co-editor are extremely nice and supportive. The saving grace is that it was fast. I was surprised these two letters resulted in the overall reject. I inquired a few times, and they responded promptly and politely, but sitting on a manuscript for a year is obviously unacceptable. So if your topic is not within this field, the desk rejection is much more likely. Great experience. Two helpful referee reports. 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. Good reports. Rejected with a 1-page AE report, after almost 3 months. Once that work was published, he finally accepted the paper. Search by field of study. Good experience, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. High quality reports and useful comments from the editor. Really improved the paper. 2 very short reports after waiting 11 months and paying a crazy submission fee. 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. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. Pretty fast, 1 high quailty report. overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness. It took them 10 months to say anything and at the end even though the referees asked for revisions and were positive the editor rejected the paper. Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. Desk rejected the same day! Editor was our de facto 2nd referee. Near-perfect experience. Very good reports and editor was clear about what were most important points to improve in the revision. Meaningless reviews. Both refs postive but think the topic is not a good fit for the journal. Good to be fast, but quality of feedback should be taken care of more at this journal. English. Glad that they didn't waste my time. two weeks. This was high risk but of course at the end worth it because it is a good journal. Reject and resubmit. It took 7 months until the JORS provided two referee reports of poor quality (one refere suggested to replace GMM with FE regression because it is impossible to solve endogeneity completely). Fast process and 2 helpful ref. Expedient. Top scholars if it comes to RCTs, but no broaded view. Poor quality single report. major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). 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). Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. Referee really helped me to improve this paper with a great report. I don't think he/she took a wee bit of pain to find out the context. One useless referee report claiming that we did not make robustness checks in a journal of 2000 letters! 2 referee reports: 1 very detailed recommending revisions; other useless. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. Can you get a job? Terrible experience. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. Yep, it is. Very efficient process. It details the following: Preparing to go on the job market. 2.5 months to get a RR. At least they are faster than their reputation. Editor does not made any comment, probably has not read the paper at all. However, the quality of the report is very high and it helps improve the paper a lot. had to withdraw, Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. Useless referee reports--one was just a single short paragraph. After "awaiting referee selection" for 4 months, I sent a query and got one referee report. High quality, detailed referee reports, which substantially improved the paper. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. "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. Lots of minor standardized formating requests, then a gap of 10 weeks to get accepted. Reports were ok but most of the time was waiting for editor to pull his finger out. A drawback is that it takes time. His comments indicate he did not have an open arm to read introduction carefully to desk reject. The second time I was told that my results were "not surprising". Worst experience ever. 3rd review was pending. Fast Review process. Editor obviously read over the paper and gave a couple of helpful comments. The comments are of bad quality and show poor knowledge of economics. Very different than my past experience. Suggested a more specialized journal. Good experience! Two sloppy reports, one useful. I'd submit there again in the future. 3 reports. Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. Worst experience ever. This paper has just been accepted in a top transportation journal now. this journal is very inefficient in processing submissions and re-submissions. 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. The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. [2] [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors . Nice when they actually read the paper. JFM is bad! Referee reports were on the shrt side, but competent and polite, unfrtunately I doubt that the comments received will help improving the paper. Paper went multiple rounds over 2 years. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. Desk rejected in two hours with a polite email that basically said "your methodology is wrong and your question is wrong." Fair decision and process, 2 mildly positive reviews, editor shot it down. Competent referee reports, although one of them extremely hostile. 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. Not signed by any specific editor, so not even sure who handled the manuscript. It is frustrating to get rejected after convincing the referees. The editor emailed me after 6 days and said he read and liked the paper. took 7 months for 1 referee report, but the R&R was quick. I waited six weeks for an inaccurate, one paragraph referee report? 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". I resubmitted in January, and the paper was accepted with minor revisions in March. Editor agreed. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable commentvery well run journal, fast and no submission fee! The equation to be estimated is not well explained and basic econometric issues (e.g., the problems related to the inclusion of lagged dependent variables) are not discussed. paper took over a month to get desk rejected because of problems with elsevier system. The other is constructive but not as good. Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud. Very quick rejection, but I received a nice response from one of the co-editors. Desk rejection with no comments in 3 weeks. Fast review process. It took 18 months after first revision. Fast turnover. Took about 2.5-3 months for first response which detailed a lot of work - two R & R decisions, each of which took about 2 months for referees to get back on. Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. Editor decided based on 1 report. Arbitrary decision without sending it to refs by incompetent editor. Desk rejected in 8 days. The journal is a joke! Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit. said it was a matter of fit. Despite disappointing turnout, reports were good with useful and specific suggestions on ways to improve the paper. The editor said there was issues with finding referees. I wouldn't try this again. Do not waste your time with this journal. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. 1 Month and 10 days for first decision is too long. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. 2 referees clearly read the paper and made some good and insightful comments. Asim I. Khwaja editor, Two out of three referee reports were good one was much less. All are lengthy and constructive. Despite perceptions they do desk reject. Sick comments and rejection for no reasons. Two useful reports that improved the paper. One very good report. Good experience in general, the editor recommended a field journal. Terrible editor. Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. They pocketed the submission fee, though! your paper, after some updating to reflect the recent complementary literature, would be more appropriate for a more specialized journal. 6 weeks for a desk reject. Good referee report + some comments from AE. The editor also read the paper and gave very good comments and suggestions. What a joke! Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. Economist 64dd. Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). One guy who had no clue, the other who had good insight into our paper. ", Fact: the SAT and GRE are just thinly veiled IQ tests. One decent and one sloppy report, 1 good report, 1 bad one, decent turnaround time. very efficient process and useful reports from editor and referess. 4 months for a desk rejection based on what it appears to be a very superficial reading of the abstract. Admittedly, they must receive a lot of submissions, but that does not excuse this. Overall great experience. Suggested top field journal. Outcome was positive in the end, but I had to follow some nonsense instructions from the referees and the editor. Not very fast but good in overall. best submission experience. Horrible! Sent it to another top 5 instead where it got accepted after one round of revisions - never give up guys! Very smooth process. 2 weeks for desk rejection. Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. Candidate Job Market Roster. With my 4-6 data observations (different journals), EL is definitely the most efficient journal. I wish my coauthors would not be too sad being rejected. This is the letter I sent to the editor of JME: Laughable report (where do they find these clueless idiots?). One excellent referee report, one terrible. Isn't it so obvious?" I am not sure the referee knows the topic area well enough. Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". Fast turn around with great referee reports that significantly improved the paper. They never refunded my fee either. Placement Administrator: Stephanie Burbank 650-725-6198 sburbank@stanford.edu. R&R, took forever, reports mentioned but not provided, not responsive to emails. Deputy Editor rejected the paper with insufficient contribution and a comment that doesn't make sense. So despite I got a rejection, the experience is actually not that bad. No applied letter should take 9 months to referee and the fact that editor did not solicit additional reports or nag the referee shows they don't care. One useless report, and one very useful report. Fair and quick process. Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. Click here for more information. "Referee report" Biggest joke on Earth!! Crawford rejects although refs and editor recommends revision. Contribution too small. You can even not see these wordings in Game of Thrones. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. After resubmitting, accepted in 2 weeks without going to referees. Paper was accepted in 1 month after the submission. Turnaround times are reasonable though. Editor didn't even read the paper and rejected it. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. Fast desk reject (Ciccone), after few days. One referee reports is only 2 short paragraphs long and completely wrong. Emailed every six months never to any response. Duh, Very helpful response from editor giving specific reasons that the manuscript would not be sent to referees, Thanks for your joining the Society, by the way, we don't think your historical paper with brand new historical data is right for a history journal. One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. On the whole very good experience. DK carefully read and gave constructive feedback. So unprofessional and shameful. Helpful comments from referees and editor. no negative comments, just say that the contribution is not big enough for Econometrica, which is completely understandable. Editor sent a peper to a 3rd ref, which took forever to write another negative report. One referee gave lots of great comments, while the other referee was pretty much useless. Editorial office very helpful. 2 days from submission to desk rejection. half a page report. Worst experience ever. Note that some areas need filling in with actual pages. Quite upsetting. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. Write any form of equation and you're skewered! Mathematics Jobs Wiki. Suggested field journal. Took almost 3 months for the first reports. 3 Reports. Reason given: "not general enough." Just one very low quality report. Thorough referee reports with substantive comments. Desk rejected, but after consultation with a referee who provided a mini-report. Standard experience with the JHR. Avoid at all costs. Also a very kind editorial letter. The journal is likely to go up again. Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. Seemed like a fair decision. writing? Editor was Barro. Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. suggest some field journals. Apparently the assigned coeditor left and paper got stuck. Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. Comical journal. Great experience. Flores, Jairo. the website was hackedthe report was good, and the associate editor is very nice. 1 month to wait for a desk reject is too long. Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help. Decent referee reports. He suggested a more suitable outlet. AVOID it. My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. Some interesting comments, but not much. Lots of puffed up explanation marks and faux outrage. Ignored reputation of this journal being a small closed network (mostly WB) journal. 1 very good referee report, 1 OK, 1 pretty bad (revealing that the referee was clearly a non-economist). Portuguese Economic Journal* Great process. Big lie. It took 6 months a referee to look at the paper and decide that it does not make enough contribution to be published in this journal (very smart idea). It took the editor 3 months to write two paragraphs and reject. Very good reports that help us to improve the paper a lot. Helpful and doable things. Editor noted that paper of an associate editor was not cited but did not mention the name of the paper. Referee reports were very good, constructive and tough. Bad experience, waste of money and time. I haven't received the first response yet. Helpful reports in general. Suggested changes and several other outlets. they should have desk rejected, AE told me: you should not be surprised that IER typically does not appreciate this kind of work.. they wasted my time. Economics Job Market Rumors. Paper desk rejected in 3 days. Quality suggestions from all three reports & editor. One was more helpful than the other. Took about two weeks. Editor was Imran Rasul, extremely professional and competent. What is left to say? Very good referee report. recommended Journal of Development Economics. My paper was in "submitted" status for almost 5 months when made a query. helpful comments; quick process; good experience. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. Poor reports. Would surely submit to it again. Will submit again. Process was too long given that only minor changes were required on R&R. Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. They did not send an offer last year either. Taburet (LSE), Leombroni (Stanford), Puglisi (Northwestern), Wangner (TSE), Qiu (Pennsylvania), Morazzoni (UPF), Charles (USC), Hurtado (Chicago Booth), Nord (EUI), van der Beck (Lausanne), Monteiro (Northwestern), Gutierrez (Chicago), Senior Economist (Forecasting and Policy Modelling). Highly recommended. It's going to be most accurate for economics, political science, public policy & other professional schools. Going into the ninth month with no response. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. Waste of the submission fee. Two reports. Nice experience!!! Wasted 17 months. It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. Rejected for not have a theoretical contribution. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. Dislike for the computational results for no good reason. Editor read the paper and deskrejected in less than a week. This was after a 6 month wait and emails to the editor to follow up. I think he/she was too lazy or unfamiliar with the literature to read the paper carefully. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. Extremely slow journal! Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. 2 mildly useful reports. Two entirely reasonable reports. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. Within a week with no justification. Desk reject in 7 days. Galor and the referees felt the contribution wasn't substantial enough. 5 weeks to first response. Nice experience. There are some great papers in the journal; I would think it would get a higher impact factor. Six months to respond. Pretty stupid rationale based on lack of methodological innovation. One brief report. Same referee takes about half an hour to conclude the math is wrong, yet takes 5 months to submit his report. Editor should have told him to take a hike much earlier, especially when other refs suggested accept. Surprised at how quickly all went. Finance Job Rumors (489,486) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,772) Micro Job Rumors (15,235) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,012) China Job Market (103,527) Industry Rumors (40,348) 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. Submission to a special issue. Every time I'm impressed by how precise the reviews and suggestions are. Very different experience from the first time. UghhhI will probably withdraw the submission, It is the worst experience I have ever had with a journal. After waiting for 6 months received one crap report which is absolute garbage! Journal response was quick. Lousy comments from the Editor in chief. Good. Duration: 2 years. Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. Desk reject in 1 week. Law School. Some useful comments from his friend. We do not need dumb editors!! 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. Much better process and better reviewers at JAERE.

Grassfields Restaurant Chicago, One Level Townhomes In Hudson, Wi, Iep Goals For Long Division, How To Use Shoprunner On Bloomingdale's App, Cree Wolfspeed Marcy Ny Address, Articles E