Editor suggests trying different journal. Although the referee comments were in detail some of them were really out of the scope. Generic rejection. Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. Referee reports were lenthy and very useful. Very good experience. When we chased, we received detailed referee reports and R&R quickly, but were given just 2 weeks to make massive changes to the paper - we withdrew and used comments to publish elsewhere. Copied and pasted the comments, some of which were not even relevant for the current version of the the paper. Rather uninformative feedback: feeling that it is not suitable for publication and unlikely to be favorably reviewed. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. (I submitted almost the same paper to another journal). AE did an awesome job. Horrible associate editor, Arkolakis, rejected based on his personal views. after more than 3 months still "with editor". The Editor was quite polite. Helpful comments from referees and editor. Still, refreshing for honesty. Quick first response with major r&r. I received my Ph.D. degree at the University of Chicago in 2022. Took almost 3 months for the first reports. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. 2 weeks to generic desk reject with no comments whatsoever. Negative report is pretty bad. 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. The referees responded very quickly and with excellent, high quality reports. No refund. Very helpful comments. One reviewer seemed to think a clean accept, one was 'not really convinced'. ", Two reports - one thorough and one probably by a grad student, One associate editor recommended rejection and no other comments/suggestions, but one referee provided very useful comments and s/he seems to be positive about the paper. Excellent reports. Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. The other one, who wanted extra revises, was a bit of stupid. Culter said that there was backlog at JHE. Desk rejected in 6 days with no explanation. Nedless to say I got no referee report even after asking. They pocketed the submission fee, though! Referee reports are interesting and constructive. Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. Argued lack of fit, dispite publishing a paper on the subject a few months ago, one very short useless report in seven months, 5 months + 125USD for a referee rejection with a report of about 21 lines.SHAME. The editor provided one. great experience. Resubmitted in 2 days, accepted after resubmission in 10 days. Quick and professionsl process. Good experience. Note that since the editor(Batten) is handling many different journals at the same time, you should expect relatively slow turnaround time. Great comments from the referees and editor. In print a couple of weeks later. One very helpful referee report, 2 not so helpful. They should just ask me $60. A bit slow, but kindly acknowledged by the editor. very rigorous comments. The third one very general and less useful. Not a good experience. After this thrid email, the paper moves up and it takes 11 weeks to get referee rejection (quality fo the two reports: poor, they wont improve my paper). Very good comments even if he slightly misunderstood the contribution. Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago. Contacting the editor twice did not result in speeding up the process (but we received at least a reply). Ridicolous report: 3 lines where the referee asked to address "geopolitical" issues. Quick desk reject after less than 24 hours without comments, annoying given the submission fee. The editor (Midrigan) collects three reports within 75 days. The dynamic is well known and its implications are rather straightforward in this context. Desk rejection within two weeks. Very polite desk rejection. Useful reports. Faster than I expected (3 months). Very smooth process. Editor was Nielsen. Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic. 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. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. Once that work was published, he finally accepted the paper. Near-perfect experience. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. 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 editor read the paper and provided useful advice on how to improve it. Editor letter saying that what we do is not so new. Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. One high quality report. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. I expected something more serious from a journal with such a high submission fee. Bad experience overall, although the reports came quickly. Two days between handing in the revision and acceptance. Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. Pretty good experience. Standard comments, paper's topic just not good enough. Rejected for not have a theoretical contribution. Both referees were a bit too negative, but the reports were useful. Still, was super fast and allows to improve the paper. Disappointing. Seems to be unfit the reviewing editor's preference but the handling editor was kind though. 1st round 2 1/2 months. Editor overturned referee's decisions with poor justification. Home Help Search Welcome Guest. We saw no referee report and only had to deal with editor comments/suggestions. Reasonable motivations for desk rejection provided, Fast desk rejection, poor targeting on my part, desk reject but with useful feedback from AE. 6 months after that paper online. Job Market. Helpful referee reports. No complains. Didn't refund the submission fee. In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. Very helpful comment. One referee with very helpful reports. Terrible experience - slow and unjustified decision. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Editor did not catch these oversights. The Editor is regular contributor to that mistake and provided non-sensical rejection. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. Overall good experience. Encouraging words from editor, good experience. I knew I shot too high. Great experience. Referee 1 happy with resubmission (no further comments), referee 2 suggested rejection or major rewriting. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? The reports were good and helpful. Excellent editorial service from Bruno Biais. One decent, the other sloppy. 1 good report and 2 of low quality probably written by grad students. Not general interest enough. Received 2 very nice and 1 okay-ish report. No reason provided, in line with the journal policy. I believe that if that is the reason it could have been desk rejected. Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING. While the paper was rejected the referee reports were in-depth and very helpful. paper is short so 6 months for each round is very long. Good. Unfortunately paper was assigned to handling editor who was on study leave. faculty) positions. It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. 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 took almost two month for a desk reject. 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. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO) Referee only comments on the first half of the paper. The other did not understand the basic identification strategy in the paper. Referees did not bother to read the paper. Very pleasant experience! Editor seemed not to have read the paper. The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. An Associate Editor clearly read the paper. Decent reports, no complain. Unfortunately the paper is rejected but I hope the reports help you improve the paper for another journal. I was very grateful despite the rejection. He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. Process lasted one year with nontransparent, contradictory review process. Good referee reports. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. Bad to useless reports after a longish delay. Bradshaw AdvisoryLondon/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds - UK. 1 reject and 1 R&R. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. Quick desk reject and no comments of substance (form letter) but no cost of submission. It is a pity it was rejected, but I appreciate the quick response. Fasstest acceptation ever after R&R: 1 day! Have contacted the editorail asistant three times (startung six weeks after submission) who said she would remind the editor. Very very good comments, referee was clearly very knowledgeable. The other referee was very positive but the editor followed the negative report. Referee report was positive and recommended R&R. Revise and resubmit. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions. Considering withdrawing. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. The editor did not even realized this and rejected. Desk rejected with 1 sentence after 2 months. 1 Ref suggested R&R, Galasso decided to reject, Two referees, one useful and helpful, the other clearly not an expert in the field. Economist 64dd. After more than 3 months of waiting, the paper was rejected with a one-sentence referee report. They have not released it, sorry. Desk-rejected after one week without any substantial or specific comment, apart recommending to submit to a specialist journal. Wouldn't submit here again. My first ever publication. No response. Edmans said he wanted RoF to be top 3. Clearly no effort was put into it. The discussant in the shitty conf gives better comments. Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. My paper was not complicated and could have been rejected in 2-3 months easily. We thought we'd receive useful reports even if we got rejected, but this turned out to be a total waste of time. Desk rejected in 25 minutes. Joerg Baten seems to be literally an idiot making me wonder how he got picked. Two referee reports, one good and constructive and the other so-so. Download the MIT Economics Job Market Packet. the referee report adds nothing, and the editor rejects based on the meaningless report. Entire process takes 1 month. Very slow and the reason for rejection was not good enough. Super fast review. Pleasant experience. One of the referees helped me structure the paper nicely. Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. One of my best experiences. Very fast rounds with very insightful and reasonable referee reports and suggestions by the editor. 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. very good experience and fast acceptance after addressing referees' comments. Very efficiently run journal (at least my experience). Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. Very good experience. We regularly reject without referees the majority of all papers submitted to the QJE. The referees should be (far) better than the illiterate idiot they gave me! Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. Not sure whether to classify this as a desk or referee reject. Good communication with the editor, very helpful referee report. Two referee reviews. 2 reports minimal work, 1 report some work. Less than 24 hours.Rogert J. Barro was the editor. Used reports from AER. Editor then said with a quick/thorough response and no need to go back to refs. In terms of rejections this is probably as good as it gets. Excellent editor, balanced referees and good timing. Editor was very reasonable. very thorough referee report, comments were mostly related to theoretical motivation, paper was submitted without much change to JFE and eventually accepted there. Thought already in literature. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. Nice experience, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. Editor misunderstood the findings, complained didn't understand the Y variable (maybe ease up on the word limit then). Lasted 4 days! Desk rejection in one day by Giovanni Perri. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. Long wait though. Rejected in 4 days, editor said work was done net resting but not broad enough. Not very helpful reports. Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever. In? Desk rejected, one sentence given. Single-blind review system for a 250 bucks fee. Editor had a "confidential" report that he wouldn't share, and on the basis of that chose rejection. There was a second round of ref. Editor is bonkers, he said article was outside scope of journal.when it was clearly regiona/urban economics article. Unbelieveble how fast some journals work!!!!! Editor also read the paper and took the call - explained that the paper was better suited at a good field journal given referee assessments of contribution to literature. my ?defense,? I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know very quick. Very quick rejection, but I received a nice response from one of the co-editors. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Editor decided based on 1 report. Bad experience overall. Strongly recommend this journal for health economists! 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. Seemed not to like the idea of the paper without actually reading it. One was thoughtful report, pointed to at least one direction we can improve. Great editor who was great at handling the process and chasing referees. Ref #1 created new issues after I addressed his first round. Saying that the topic is not general enough. Terribly run journal. Great comments from editor. One ref in favor, one against. Note that the shorter the time span considered, the more likely the ranking is going to be spurious. The process was very fast. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied even though I got a fast rejection. Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Putea MatuaWellington - New Zealand, Assistant Director, Economics one referee pointed to their own working paper which is still not published (jan 2017), Positive: 1 high quality referee report and some comments by the co-editor; Negative: 2 other referee reports of medium to very low quality. A Doctorate level degree in Economics or related fields, or expect to receive it in 2023 with strong background in empirical analysis and policy-focused research. Helpful comments from the editor. Paper eventually got accepted at higher ranked journal (!). church of the highlands easter 2021,