WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). The editor is incredible. Job Market Candidates 2022-23 | Economics - Boston University completely ?misread? also received comments from the old reviewer that were better than the first review. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. 2 months for desk rejection is awkward. Quick response. No feedback at all. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. Very professional editors. I published my article in a very decent journal later. One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. Outright accept after first resubmission still came as a surprise given JIE typically has 2-3 rounds. Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. linking the paper with the "literature in the field", although we specifically say that our empirical application is novel to the field, so there are no comparable references. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. Very clear that two of the three referees hadn't read the paper. Placement Director - Alessandro Pavan Email: alepavan@northwestern.edu. Result not general enough for ECMA. Editor was Barro. The AEA provides a guide to the job market process created by John Cawley. Thanks for quick decision. 1 good report and 1 not so good. One useful referee report and one that was not. Editor read the paper too and added some short comments. Fairly quick acceptance. He only mentioned that I failed to mention a lot of papers who were all by the same person. I received an answer of the editor after 2 months. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. Referees were obviously a bad choice for this topic. Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work.". Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. R&R was helpful. Editor desk rejected after a couple of weeks due to lack of fit. I don't know what to add. Not very fast but good in overall. "In order to speed up and improve the submission process for both authors and referees, we have raised the number of papers that we reject without seeking reports.". Arbitrary decision without sending it to refs by incompetent editor. Really good advice from journal editor and 2 good reports. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. Handled by an editor who is not in the same field. Formal letter in less than 10 days returning my manuscript. Editor followed the second report. Desk Rejected after 2 days. 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. Had to withdraw after waiting for nearly a year and a half. Editor agreed with them. The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. Terrible, very short referee reports. Efficient process, stuck to advertised timings. Fast. Disappointing experience. Tough, but fair referees. Offers and negotiating. My previous rejection there was north of 6 months One very low quality report, one very thorough report. The editor and AEs should be immediately replaced. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. The paper was accepted quickly after revision. Editor sat for two months on completed referee report and rejected without adding any comments. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. 2.5 months to get a RR. Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. Desk reject due to lack of scope of the manuscript, Rejected for a lack of contribution. A bit long for a short paper, comments were fair and detailed although they pointed the way to an R&R rather than rejection. Gave a quick explanation and said they did a thorough read of the paper. We agreed with most of the comments. 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit. One referee suggested R and R. Other referee rejected (AE and DE supported this). The review process yielded good referee reports in round 1. Fair referee reports, ref. Extremely fast and thoughtful. The low-quality report won out Reject with two solid reports. Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! Editor recommended to submit to other journals. Extremely disappointed. Still not a fan of this journal. Two weeks. In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. Serrano handled the manuscript. Quick turnaround time for the first R&R, but very slow for the last round. Overall good experience. KS super smart and constructive feedback. This was high risk but of course at the end worth it because it is a good journal. Most inefficient handling ever. However, it seems the process is one editor first decide whether to send to referee or not but a second editor makes the final decision (William Kerr)? He gave few recommendations. Paper got desk rejected shortly after. 2 quick rounds of R&R. I think the editor may have been waiting on a 3rd report, glad they didn't wait any longer (20 weeks is enough to wait for a reject). Overall, pretty speedy given my submission coincided with end of year grading season and winter holidays in the US. Two reviewers recommended rejection. had to withdraw, Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. the other report is empty (rejection). Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Editor rejected on the basis of being too narrow. Bruno Biais was AE. 14 days to desk reject, worthless generic email that said nothing on why it was rejected, merely that they "get lots of papers. Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. Finance Job Rumors (489,470) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,758) Micro Job Rumors (15,233) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,523) Industry Rumors (40,348) English. Bad experience. The model is not in AE's taste. The second one is more critical and seems to be angry by the fact that I'm not citing his work. Ass editor wrote some useful comments. Replied within a week but editor clearly read the paper and identified main points which, however, seemed not important to him to warrant publication in RES. I wish we had drawn a different editor. one ok, one very short and superficial referee report. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. Suggested to submit to RSUE. The Editor Requate cannot distinguish between partial and general equilibrium. The report is rubbish and incorrect. Short turn around time. The editor didn't bother to read through the lines of my responses to his previous reports to see how incompetent the referee is, or to look at the big picture and account also for the reports of other referees who wrote much more competent reports and had recommended acceptance several rounds earlier. Both referees are bad at econometrics. You have to earn it! Quite upsetting. First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. Received acceptance on the same day i resubmitted the paper. $65 down the drain! Horrible experience! The first response took more than I expected, but the referee's comment was very constructive. (I submitted almost the same paper to another journal). Job Market. A bit slow for a 2000 words paper. One referee clearly did not read the paper, while the other one did not understand the meaning of control variables. Less than insightful comments by an editor clearly hastily read the paper. One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. Will not submit here in the future. A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!! REHO is a scam, not a journal. One referee posted two of his own papers including url in the report, one of which was just accepted in the same journal before sending reports. good referee reports (1 yes, 2 no). I sent in my paper and after 2 emails requesting information about the status of my manuscript, I was asked to be patient. Rejection based on technical point, which could be fixed withing 2 weeks. 5 months for one low-quality referee report. OK comments from referee. (310) 206-1413. Bazinga! Bigger joke than the article I sent them. Mess with the submission, as they were changing editors. only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. Long reports with some good comments. !. Editor like the paper but their hands were tied, I guess. Extremly disappointing for a journal which claims to be the number one field journal. Thorough referee reports with substantive comments. reviewer reports were okay, but the process took so long. Job Market. Desk rejected in the 24 hour window. Excellent and rapid process, with clear comments and instructions from referees and editor. Analytic number theorists: your opinion on TK's claimed disproof of the RH ? Desk reject after 3 days. Will submit again. Horrible reports. Quick turnaround, helpful comments, will submit again, Desk rejected in less than a week. Fast editorial process. Long process. Was advised to submit to a field journal, Good reports, efficient process, we just didn't meet Katz's "general interest" standard, Surprised didn't get a desk reject. Reject due to the non-response by the referee. Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. Waste of time. Very efficient; referee reports are of pretty high quality. Kathryn spier, the editor, was even more clueless and unable to see that we were right and s(he) was wrong. Bad report, condescending. Just one very low quality report. Yep, it is. Desk reject after 2 months. One very positive and helpful report, one negative report. Reason cited: weak paper. Valuable referee's reports. Yet editor made some good comments. First experience with this journal.
Unable To Send Fcm Message No Token Exists, Slack Video Grid View, Amtifo Backup Camera Troubleshooting, Jose Torres El Rey De Alto Mando Biografia, Articles E