Rejected after 2 weeks. Good reports, but what a punch in the gut. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. Rejection after R&R. Both referees read the paper, one of them even found some mistake in the proof. Long time to first response and had to chase up editor, but comments were helpful and editor was very engaged in the revision process. smooth in general. So, I "told mother", and she was like "What is Edge-mer? Helpful and fair referee reports. My paper was much of empirical. EconJobRumors .com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is an internet forum for academic economists. Overall, great experience despite the negative outcome, The WORST experience of my rather long life. Referee said he just didn't like the paper. extremely slow. Expected a bit better. Three months. I must say second reviewer report was 1 and a half line and in my view it is the most unscientific report I have ever seen. But the editor (Kunst) decided to "follow the referee's advice to reject your submission", even though there was no indication of such a recommendation in the RR. Have emailed for status to no avail. Emailed every six months never to any response. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied. No flyouts yet. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. Chiara Paz and Alice Wang. One good quality report suggesting minor revisions after 1 month. reports. My previous two research papers were also desk rejected by Barro. Totally automated review process; one referee carps even with demonstrably invalid reason and you have no right even to contact the editor. Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. I sent off the revision less than 24 hours after the R&R. I wonder how an editor can accept such low-quality output from the referees. paper rejected after one round of R&R due to extremely negative attitude of the one referee. Awful experience. Accepted after two rounds of revisions. Two thoughtful refs, one clueless. Which.a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject. It took more than 2 months for desk reject. Paper not anywhere close to editor's field of interest. Much better than overal reputation of journal. The revised submission was accepted within a month. First referee constructive and positive. Other referee didn't have a clue. Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. Superficial comment. Otherwise fine. Was not notified by the decision through email, found the decision in manuscript central during a random check. Good handling by the editor (Reis). Editor provided useful feedback and a subsequent version of the manuscript was sent out for peer review. I feel that mediocre editors are too scared to consider papers unless at least one of the authors is a big shot. I think s/he would have been satisfied by an appendix section on the issue raised. The Referee Report was very helpful and quite positive. Unhelpful, rambling. Referee had positive comments and suggested revise and resubmit, but editor rejected it. Editor realized the mistake and suggested to resubmit after implementing additional revisions (another 2+ months of work). Extensive reviews though. After careful consideration, the JAPE editorial team considers the paper is largely a statistics exercise. Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us. One of those cases where the paper though rejected improved significantly as a result. Drop the "Economics." Just "Job Market Rumors." That sounds fair to me. Unhappy with the outcome of course, but pleased with the process and the handling. Desk Rejected after 2 days. Quick to online first. The reviewer and the editor did not understand the paper. One Referee wrote nonsense, the other was good, the editor added nonsense. 1: 1: We have moved! Waited 6 months for one report, from which it was clear that the referee hadn't even read the paper properly. Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). very professional; some referees had good points; should have spent more time polishing the paper before submitting. Solid referee report and very quick response. Fast, bad luck with the editor who simply did not seem to see the point of the paper. Useful reports, pleasant experience overall. In a word, this is not a serious journal. The Editor was quite polite. Still, was super fast and allows to improve the paper. See Alice Wu's paper for details. highly unprofessional, the report is not useful, comments make little sense and contradict to the extant literature on the topic. Depressing experience. after more than 3 months still "with editor". Editor read and carefully considered the paper. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. A couple nice comments from Shleifer after two days. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. Editor (Taylor) gave additional advice. however,? But then again it was my fault, I didn't run an experiment! Wide disagreement among reviewers about paper, but one very helpful report. But I'm not in any club and not at an elite school (by choice). Reasonable comments from the referee, extremely fast and efficient process. Friendly referee with clear remarks. One single bad report. Checked my e-mail and editor rejected the paper. One positive (R&R) and other two had valid concerns I could have clarified better ex-ante. Editor handled it well. Referees all showed an understanding of the paper and suggestions were useful. Placement Administrator: Stephanie Burbank 650-725-6198 sburbank@stanford.edu. No comments at all from editor other than generic stuff. faculty) positions. Very good referees. fast process; only one report who was mainly referencing a single paper (SSRN, not published, single author); no useful feedback, disappointing experience. Three tough rounds which made the paper better. Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. Desk rejection after 8 days. Expected much better from this journal. We were authorized to hire 2 macro candidates, and we have now done so. Some useful comments from his friend. Suggested changes and several other outlets. I knew I shot too high. Was contacted again after another two years promising that my paper was to be considered, and say yes please do. Good experience. 6 months to receive half-assed & useless referee reports and request for major revisions. Very long time for first response. 1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals. Second one didn't understand the paper and said it was already written. The submission and revision process was great and timely. I love this journal. All suggest major revision and change of approach. reviewer reports were okay, but the process took so long. Very slow process but happy to get accepted. Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. He clearly outlined the major flaws and decided to desk-reject it. The editor did put more weight on the negative one. Note that the shorter the time span considered, the more likely the ranking is going to be spurious. Would submit again. Will never submit again. solution? The ME provided helpful comments on top of the two reviewers'. Good experience. HUMAN HELP: The Placement Chair for the 2022-2023 academic year is Professor Ben Handel, handel@berkeley.edu. said it was a matter of fit. Desk reject after 1 week. One recommended reject, the other R&R. report and a couple of pretty good ones. We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. Editor did seem to have read the paper, possibly in more detail than the referee who comments several thing that was included in paper. Oh well, on to the next journal. In anyway, you need to be very careful when responding with him, he can easily upset you with a rejection. Total turn around time was about 40 days. The report was substantive and some comments were helpful, though there was only one of them. Will submit again. +6 months for a desk rejection without a single comment. Ultimately, Editor rejected as felt it was not general purpose enough. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. Full refund. Ref reports of high quality, mention half a dozen suggestions for robustness which perhaps amounted to too much for the editor to let this go to revision. one very weird report, asking to cite an unknown WP, from a PhD student One R&R with minor rev, one inscrutable report, and one unfair report with incorrect claims. Recently Announced. Desh rejected in less than a week. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Job Market | Department of Economics | Virginia Tech Empty report. Joke rejection but not unexpected from this team. It appears they don't like overly technical papers (it's an interdisciplinary journal so depends on who the editor is at the time - if not an economist, then avoid). complete waste of time, Very nice editor's letter. Accepted without revisions. Report very critical but useful nonetheless. Only one referee report. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. Excellent process. Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, O. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. Passed the desk (Turner) in ten days. 2 referee reports: 1 very detailed recommending revisions; other useless. Desk rejected in two weeks. Overall good experience. The former editors at the penn state just issued reject to relieve their editorial jobs. overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness. While the goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. desk rejection in 2 weeks. Checked status online after a month to see the outcome. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. Rejected within two weeks. Contribution too small. One very grumpy referee report. Pretty average speed compared to other journals. Suggested field journal. Fantastic experience. Editor also gave very detailed description of the necessary changes. Is "have u told ur mother" am automated script, or truly deranged person? Referee reports were very brief and contained little in the way of substantive comments. Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. Really bad experience! 7 days from first submission to minor revision. Editor Prof. David Peel is a very nice guy. Not all theory papers are welcomed. Rather uninformative feedback: feeling that it is not suitable for publication and unlikely to be favorably reviewed. Resulted in much better paper. First report was helpful, second one was literally 2 lines. Helpful editor. Market Design; Organizational Economics; Personnel Economics; Race and Stratification in the Economy; Risks of Financial Institutions ; Urban Economics; . Very helpful comment. Three rounds: one major + two minor (the last one being really minor, like copy-editing and missing references minor). One of the referee reports was sloppy, showing inaccurate reading. One referee kept claiming one thing was wrong. 3 reports. Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda. Rejection based on fit. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. Very efficient process, very good comments from both the reviewers and the editor. Editor didn't believe our identification. Great experience. Editor gives no justification whatsoever. Editor decided to reject because he could only find one person to review. That's right. The editor suggested to try a more mainstream Public Finance journal (I think may paper could have fit Public Choice but fair enough I will try another Public Finance journal). Short straight-to-the point referee report with a few nice points, no bullc*ap. 1 month to wait for a desk reject is too long. Don't know why Elsevier is silence about this behavior from Batten. One report was very useful and of very good quality, the other was of good quality but not very useful. Crappy reports. Clearly the paper was not good enough for the JIE. Fair and quick process. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. Most dishonest rejection. Two weeks. Editor read the paper and outlined clear and fair reasons for rejection. Constructive and very detailed referee comments improved the paper. quick process but the editor provided no information and was impolite. Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. Seemed to have an agenda, as though I offended his work. She was formerly director of macroeconomic policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, and a Section Chief at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, where she worked in various capacities from 2007 to 2019. Waited 13 months to two mildly positive reports. Good referee reports. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. Desk rejected in the 24 hour window. the? Overall good experience. Useful letter from the editor. Editor said he is sorry for the wait still waiting for the outcome of the second round. Awesome experience. Editor was respectful and not full of himself. Bigger joke than the article I sent them. ", Editor had serious problems in getting referee reports although on this topic there should have been at least 20 potential referees. Painfully crushing rejection, as all referees agreed it was a good paper, but had some valid concerns about length and possible general interest contribution. The paper was accepted after I incorporated all suggestions in R&R. I? Rejection based on technical point, which could be fixed withing 2 weeks. Referee wrote a short report with easily implementable suggestions, suggesting revision. Do not submit there. Both referees were a bit too negative, but the reports were useful. R&R in two months. Mildly positive referees but reject nonetheless. Mod's pls delete it. Good process. While harping on the issue, provided no insights as to how one can go about it. Results not important enough to a broad audience. desk rejection because it is not a good fit and i am asked to send it to an economic journal --- while i mainly discussed with a very nice sociologist when writing this paper. Only one report. Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. Still got rejected. the journal is recovering. But the comments helped. Referees asked for useless extensions and took more than six months in each round. Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. A bit of wait but ok for econ standards. Polite letter from Bekaert. Two referee reports, one good and constructive and the other so-so. Except when I have coauthored with someone who is at an elite school, I've been desk rejected every time at QJE. All reports are positive. Unfortunately paper was assigned to handling editor who was on study leave. Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. The editor barely read the paper and decided to reject! Would not hesitate to submit to this journal in the future. Went from reject/resubmit to revise resubmit 1, revise resubmit 2, finally accepted. Desk rejected within 1 week. The paper is not of the interest of SCW readers! OK process, but some reports were useless. One very good report, the other OK. Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. Mark Watson was the editor. Editor from outside of the field (empirical corporate fin) did not think that my paper (ap theory) is interesting. Super fast and clear feedback. Job Market Paper: Sorting in the Marriage Market: The Role of Inequality and its Impact on Intergenerational Mobility. Editor rejected on the basis of being too narrow. Readers familiar with the operation of the market can proceeddirectlytothe"data"subsectionbelow. Use widely accepted methods. Rejected after revision for reasons that had nothing to do with the revision and should've been brought up on the first decision. Worst experience with a journal so far. STAY AWAY from this journal! First experience with this journal. Some good comments though. "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.". Comments like "I do not understand the findings of this study" show that the journal is not what it used to be. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. the editor was helpful and nice though. one positive, one negative report. Long wait. Ref. Job Market Candidates. ref report had useful but not overly comprehensive suggestions. Unfair letter from Emi N. Great letters from four referees and three of them are very positive! Quick turnaround upon revision. Write any form of equation and you're skewered! Editor made some quick comments and recommended 3 journals a tier below. Re-submission took a week to be finally be accepted. EM suggested transfer to a different journal (which desk rejected after 2 hours). Each report was one small paragraph long. 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. One report was very useful. Also revisions handled quite efficiently! Very good experience. From the abstract to the conclusion, we kept arguing like "A is not the main point, we should look at B." Three rounds. Positive feedback from the editor. 5 weeks for a desk reject. Extremely fast and with 2 high quality RRs. Rejected on the basis of wrong comments. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). Desk reject after two weeks. One very good report. Good experience in general, the editor recommended a field journal. Rejected with one referee report in just under a month. Very efficient. Desk rejection based on lack of fit, altough there were at least 4 papers published on the same topic in previous years. We got RR and referee reports 4 moths after submission, then it took 5 months to acceptance. Polite, even quite positive reports. Too long waiting time. If you are in a hurry or need one to fill you CV, then choose it.. editor very helpful. With referees in 15 days of submission. A journal to avoid. Not general interest. Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. Editor was also very helpful. Negative reaction of referees. A drawback is that it takes time. contribution is not enough. Who are these people?? He even signed the letter. Funny thing is Editor endorsed reviewer's response. Initial demanding R&R. Most graduates apply to 50 or more schools to hope to get one job. One brief report. topics should probably be closely related to banking. Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. Pretty terrible experience. The paper was not a good fit for the journal and another journal was recommended. Took almost 3 months for the first reports. Poor report but good comments from the associate editor, Associate Editor and the reviewer provided excellent feedback, Very fast and easy, but useless reports and editors (which is what I wanted for a quick worthless pub). What a joke! But the discipline should find another way. Editor was Mogde. Desk rejection with no comments in 3 weeks. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. 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!