econ job market rumors wiki

In a word, this is not a serious journal. AE followed majority reports without additional insights. 4 months for a letter w/o referee report. But at least it was quick. After waiting for more than 5 months I got 0 Referee reports and a rejection based on very loose comments. The comments were not helpful, but at least I know that the editor has a strong bias towards the method. No negative comments from referees on the substance, but one referee just didn't like it. 4.5 months to get the 1st-round comments, 2.5 months for 2nd round. Two excellent referee reports. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). Avoid at all cost. Much improved paper. That mean 5 people read my paper? The referee has read the paper. Two of three referees did not read the paper. 2 weeks. The referee made also several nonsensical remarks about the methodology giving a signal that s/he hasnt thoroughly went through the paper. One referee report was very good; the second was also modestly helpful. Referee reports were of high quality. 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)? Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. Bar-Isaak is the editor in charge (much better than others like nocke). Ever. The most thoughtful and detailed review I've ever had. Sum up: Fast but not cool, Editor. Desk rejected in 2 days. Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. After two interventions got 1 ridiculous report. After seven month the co-editor rejects the paper based on a report which is terrible. Fast and serious journal. Editor did not even read the paper correctly. While the ref rejection runied my day, I must conclude that the process was very efficient and the editors/refs earned every penny of the submission fee based on the feedback I received. Worst experience I have ever had. Valuable referee's reports. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. Form letter. very thorough referee report, comments were mostly related to theoretical motivation, paper was submitted without much change to JFE and eventually accepted there. One of the worst experience I have ever had. 1 helpful report. Just one referee report. Not a good fit! One good referee report, one referee who had no idea. 2 quick rounds of R&R. Desk reject in 7 days. Most efficient experience with journals ever! Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper. 19 Jun 2023. 2 months to R&R, revisions accepted by editor about a week after re-submission. All in all it was a fair rejection and a good experience overall. editor obviously read the paper (indicated by reference to appendix figure in the letter); nice and helpful comments. That was disappointing. Very disappointing experience. Waste my time. It's time for the journal to kick out some unprofessional referees. Two high quality reports. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Kinda pissed. Was pleased with the process, besides the rejection. Had a paper published there recently. 9 days. Sadly, from the comments of the editor it was clear that she did not read the paper careully either, otherwise she would not have written the coments we got on the rejection letter. The editor VanHoose made some good comments though. Click here for more information. Took a while, but great experience overall. Editor makes no attempt to reconcile conflicting reports or, One good referee report. 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit. Editor wrote half a page and was polite. Recommend field journals, Useful letter from the editor Dirk Krueger (aprox. Not a good fit. rejected by editor, saying should submit to other similar journal. One report only, not very helpful, relatively slow for just one report. Referee process could be streamlined (take too long), but overall a good experience. Editor accepted the paper after we made some modifications recommended by the referee. One very helpful referee report, 2 not so helpful. Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal. Economics Job Market Rumors . The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. Ok experience. Good experience. Clearly scanned the paper, deemed not general enough, and recommended other outlets. A bit long but very helpful referee report. 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. happy with outcome. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. Very good reports, very effective handling of the editor. The process had only one negative side; the reviewers implicitly asked to cite their works. 48hr desk rejection with a weird comment from the editor; You did not address related marketing literature! possible that the editor reviewed it himself, but was a fairly straightforward accept, trivial revisions only. Overall, the reports were good so no complains. Could have desk rejected and saved us all the trouble. Very quick response. Appreciate fast review and efficient process. Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. The negative one says there is no methodology novelty. Some good comments though. 1 R&R round. Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. The top traffic source to econjobrumors.com is Direct traffic, driving 56.39% of desktop visits last month, and Organic Search is the 2nd with 42.93% of traffic. Clear suggestions with R&R decision from Hillary Hoynes. Editor read the paper too and added some short comments. One paragraph report when decision finally made. Editor from outside of the field (empirical corporate fin) did not think that my paper (ap theory) is interesting. No reason given (just lack of fit..), no suggestions to improve, no money back. 2.5 weeks. I think that's fair, since I had also suspected the paper might not be a great fit. The letter from the editor suggests that he/she did not have a firm grasp of the paper. Actually Journal of Economic Policy Reform. I don't know what to add. Desk Reject in one week for lack of contribution. I am making revisions. Good communication and seemed very efficient. Conley is a tremendous editor. Economic Theory Bulletin. One decent and one sloppy report, 1 good report, 1 bad one, decent turnaround time. Very efficient process. Overall experience is good. Transfer from another Elsevier journal. One good referee report. by Tatonnement Oct 1, 2008 18:58:14 GMT -5: Legend. Editor was very reasonable. Three high quality reports that have helped to improve the paper. Empirical results didn't match their political priors so recommended rejection. 2.5 are very positive. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. Ref reports quite useful. Average turnaround time was rather long for AEJ standards. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. Desk-rejected after ten days. The editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. 1 report from a senior researcher, who thinks that our paper is a fine exercise but suits field journal better. Quick turnaround upon revision. No ref reports, 1 sentence from editor. Very slow. The manuscript improved substantially as well, thanks to the reports. OK process, but some reports were useless. It took the referees / editor 5 months to look at my revised script to then just accept it without any further comments. 10 lines not even sure they read the paper. apologize.? This page collects information about the academic mathematics job market: positions, short lists, offers, acceptances, etc. Rejected in 24 hrs, no reason given. Job Market Candidates. Two competent reviewers, one slightly hostile, one friendly. This was after a 6 month wait and emails to the editor to follow up. Editor suggested alternative outlets. Sounds fair. The co-editor was very efficient and apparently read the paper. Currently under R&R at a journal with the same ranking. 10 days for desk rejection decision. Fast process, but very poor reviewer report. Many thanks to the editor for most constructive comments. They took the paper seriously. Shockingly low quality reports that were nearly identical. Very efficient editorial process by Ken West. An uprising journal so I recommend people to publish here. Emailed the editor at JPE for a brief explanation of why the paper was desk rejected so that I could improve it. Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. Recommended field journal, and it was in fact eventually published in the top field journal. Could've desk-rejected instead of two useless referee reports. Overall I think this journal should get a more diverse editorial board. Totally automated review process; one referee carps even with demonstrably invalid reason and you have no right even to contact the editor. Rejected after revision, very good comments in initial round. Suggested to send to another journal! The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. Will not consider it again. Overall, a very good experience. Fair decision. The editor barely read the paper and decided to just reject it At least it was quick response - 11 days. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee. 5 weeks to first response. One referee liked it, the other and the editor didn't. Will never submit again. 1 suggested r&r other reject, AE decided to reject--fair decision. The worst experience I ever had in over 20 years. Title: Researcher Location: COLOMBIA JEL Classifications:. Much better process and better reviewers at JAERE. No reimburment of submission fee ($130). This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. Great experience. Not general interest enough. After 14 month a desk rejection arrived. I had a paper that was to be revised and the review was very positive. One report after 18 months. Finance Job Rumors (489,527) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,815) Micro Job Rumors (15,246) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,029) China Job Market (103,535) Industry Rumors (40,351) He/she also asked unrelated information such as why the market offer two similar contracts, which is not the scope of the study. One very good review, two quite missed points. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. The editor decided major revision. 2 good reports, clearly improved the paper. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. editor was nice enough to drop a page or so of precise and useful comments. 6 months for a referee report written by a plain imbecile who could not even derive Proposition 1. Manuscript was withdrawn - editor had assigned referees within 3 months of submission but then these were apparently not forthcoming. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. Learn More About Katia. Result not general enough for ECMA. Third report seemed written by a sage speaking in amharic, most statements were elliptical in nature, and we were left wondering what the referee's point had been. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. Meaningless reviews. That was also a very fast and good experience, though not the outcome I had hoped. The editor also read the paper and gave very good comments and suggestions. That's right. My paper was not complicated and could have been rejected in 2-3 months easily. No complaints. Efficient process and fast decision. KS super smart and constructive feedback. One is very productive while the other is suck. Great experience - referee reports really helped improve the paper. Horrible treatment. 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 . The latex formatting at the end was the most painful part. Contribution not new enough relative to the existing literature. I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. The editor read the paper and provided useful advice on how to improve it. Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. Useful comments from the editor who had to stand in for the unresponsive second referee. Two rounds of review. Much faster than last experience with the journal, same result. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. fast process; only one report who was mainly referencing a single paper (SSRN, not published, single author); no useful feedback, disappointing experience. Referee comments show that it could be an RR but the editor rejected. Ridiculous report by the most clueless referee who probably spend one hour only to read and review the paper altogether. He sends you an email that he carefully read the paper and then you follow up a day after asking him about a clarification and his response was that he did not remember. Both editor and referees liked the paper, comments from referees are on the point and constructive. He/she states that a particular model delivers a set of results, although I show that it does not. [email protected]. Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. The other referee was concerned about the limitations of the identification strategy, but the same strategy has been used in other studies (some are in top field journals). It was very smooth. However, I had issues with production, they uploaded the wrong version of my paper etc, and it looked like it wasn't even copy edited. The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. And he did not find the topic interesting. Fair process overall. Editor was very kind. Not a good experience. Also gave a lengthy extension. Just that paper did not meet the bar. One report was very useful and of very good quality, the other was of good quality but not very useful. Second round 4 months before acceptance. Used reports from AER. Two referee reports, one critical, one encouraging. Two ref reports in 8 days. Two thoughtful refs, one clueless. Overall, paper first sent in November and accepted in next August! Editor acknowledge that it was a bad draw. I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know very quick. I do nto think my paper was taken very seriously. The paper was not a good fit as it did not he approach does not engage the distinctive public choice literature. Appreciate quick reject. It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. He only mentioned that I failed to mention a lot of papers who were all by the same person. Placements of Recent Economics Graduates. useless report from "expert" regurgitating my explicitly stated caveats, B.E. Apparently the assigned coeditor left and paper got stuck. Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half. quick decision by the editor. Good comments from the editor. the revision requirements seem achievable. I will never submit there again, Excellent and constructive reports. Somehow it took a whole year for the referees to write short and horribly useless reports which show they did not even bother to read the introduction. Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. not broad enough, it seems that JHR considers themselves as a general interest journal. At the time the editor had still the paper sitting on his desk. Reviewer number two said the paper had no relevant contribution beyond those of a paper recently published in a top journal. Desk rejected in 8 days. It took me a lot of time to deal with unqualified comments. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. Nice reports that improve the quality and readability of the paper. The former editors at the penn state just issued reject to relieve their editorial jobs. It details the following: Preparing to go on the job market. avoid. Two weeks. Two month later it is rejected and get two referee reports (fair enough there). Unbelieveble how fast some journals work!!!!! Editor didn't waste any time on accepting after first revision. Reasonable. Emailed twice to ask about status and no decency of even replying. Referees tough & somewhat demanding. Rejection after 3 days. A bit slow but overall a good experience. All suggest major revision and change of approach. Rejected. One positive (R&R) and other two had valid concerns I could have clarified better ex-ante. Overall decent and professional expert reports. Handling editor still rejects for unclear reasons; very frustrating, but at least fairly timely.

Wayne Glew Privy Council, Stonewall Elementary School Calendar, Articles E