Very good experience. He, however, had the balls to apologize for the delay. The latex formatting at the end was the most painful part. This is the letter I sent to the editor of JME: Laughable report (where do they find these clueless idiots?). The referee report was very poor. No substantive comments about the content of the paper at all. Non professionalism of editor and referee: one referee asked to modify the paper and upon seeing the changes did reject saying that I should have done the way it was done in the first place. Two reports negative and one positive, editor chooses to reject. desk reject after three months editor claimed they did not publish papers on this topic but they bogh b, actually submitted in 2017; desk rejection after 1 week; short and friendly answer of editor; however inconclusive, editoral. Clearly scanned the paper, deemed not general enough, and recommended other outlets. One referee report was fine. Kind words by editor, though weird reasoning, nearly a month for an anonymous desk rejection. Desk Reject, No Comment, Horrible Experience- THEY DO NOT REFUND the submission fee. Paper was internally valid-(ish) but not a big enough contribution. At least turnaround time was fast: 14 days. This is why I'll never get married Economics Job Market Rumors Extensive, constructive and mildly positive ref report. paper proposed theory that is quite a substantial departure, so i appreciate the editor's willing to take it on. Evidence of a Toxic Environment for Women in Economics 3 detailed reports, and a summary from Hendren explaining the rejection. Very fast; useful, reasonably positive report despite rejection. Job Market. Editor Bruce Hollingsworth suggested an alternative journal. Didn't let it go, Editor told him to "#"# off and published the paper anyway. Disgraceful! After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. The paper was "with the editor". Desk rejected in 10 days. Beyond the scope of the journal. One positive report, one negative, editor's reject decision. Post an advertisement. Will never try it again. 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. Was pleased with the process, besides the rejection. Quick-ish, 10 weeks. The editor (Ravikumar) gave me an R&R with reasonable requirements. That's not true. One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor. 1 month + 10 days for desk rejection. It took 2.5 months from initial submission to receiving three OK reviews. half a page report. One quite short referee report. decent referee reports, overall good experience. If you want a fair treatment - stay away from this journal. nice experience. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!! That indicates he/she did not finish reading the paper. Very professional handling of the editor with very detailed comments and helpful reports. Overall, not bad experience. Quite slow response for a mid-tier journal. one week to accepted with minor changes. It has been about 16 months now. Mostly good comments, though not given much detail about main criticism. econjobrumors.com Traffic Analytics & Market Share | Similarweb Job Market. Took a while, but great experience overall. The comments from the editor are also disappointing: his main suggestion is to send our 7,500 words paper to economics letters. About 3 weeks turnaround. 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. Reviews not very helpful as it seems like psychologists reviewed it. Will submit again. Very mixed report quality. One highly vauable report; one okay-ish, one less useful. First report was helpful, second one was literally 2 lines. Good handling by the editor. Very bad reports from non economists. Referee recommends conditional accept but AE strongly against publication. It seems that the last guy didn't read the paper carefully and I wonder how it could take 4month to write such a poor report. ref reports were to the point but could have been higher quality for amount of time under review, Two reports, one useful, one much less so. Good experience as far as rejections go. Apparently JHE considers itself general interest. The editor agrees with the latter statement but adds "unless it's great. EconJobRumors .com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is an internet forum for academic economists. a 2 paragraph referee report that was not particularly helpful - at least the turnaround time was fast - might as well have been a desk rejection, Very low quality reports. Good experience. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. I had to contact the Editor after 2 months of seeing no change in status on my manuscript. Clear and concise communication with insightful and prfound comments by editor and reviewers. Nice comments and feedback from Associate Editor. So they had no idea about basic econometrics. Desk rejected in a week. The second editor rejected it. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. Also gave a lengthy extension. Accepted version was greatly improved. One few sentence report after 5 month. Submission is waste of time. 6 months to desk reject with little reason. Good comments from referee and editor after five months. Nice rejection letter. Editor was very kind. One guy who had no clue, the other who had good insight into our paper. Yep, it is. Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. Hassan Afrouzi Assistant Professor of Economics Columbia University Good experience overall. Two high quality reports. 3 Reports. Job Market Candidates 2022 - New York University It would be a positive experience if submission were free. relatively fast, but referees totally uninformed of the literature. recommended Journal of Development Economics. Or rather, the editor is very lazy to follow up on the reports. Response time was decent. Editorial board review and then rejection. One useless referee report claiming that we did not make robustness checks in a journal of 2000 letters! It seems from this website that this in not uncommon for this journal. Very efficient process. Paper got desk rejected. High submission fees. I think he/she was too lazy or unfamiliar with the literature to read the paper carefully. Although the suggested changes would have made the paper way too long for an EL pub. Both referees were concerned about identification, but did not suggest how to fix. As we addressed all issues in between and it better fitted EL, it was accepted without revision. The editor read the paper and provided useful advice on how to improve it. Will never submit to this journal again. His comments indicate he did not have an open arm to read introduction carefully to desk reject. 3 months for a desk rejection - no need to comment 4 months until desk reject. Special issue editor started to referee himself. I am a macroeconomist specialized in economic growth and macro labor. Excellent and clear communication with editors. One very good referee report, one useless one. Two month for two detailed reports. Editor was a bit harsh. The referee checked my citations and offered helpful comments. After more than 3 months of waiting, the paper was rejected with a one-sentence referee report. Thoughtful comments from the referees and the editor. It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. Most dishonest rejection. Revision took about 1 week, one of the reviewers requested additional data/info about the methods used. I was politely told that I should have cited more JRU papers. Clearly no effort was put into it. Even though the outcome is positive, I blame the editor for not selecting competent enough referees to begin with. Definetely the referees liked the idea and wanted to improve paper's quality not to argue with its contribution. Katz was encouraging. Helpful comments. Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. Unacceptable waiting time. Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. 2nd very short and useless, referee probably spent 10 mins on it. Desk rejected within 3 days with idiotic comments, as usual. It also tries to give advice, but not really doable. Got 3 ref reports - 1 RR 2 reject. Referees lukewarm, Foster took time and effort to explain his decision, also indicated a number of pathways to strengthen the paper. Editor claimed to have two reports but gave me only one. Good referee reports about key aspects of the research question framing and relevance. They pointed out several issues of my paper, but they are either wrong or something that can be easily fixed. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. The editor did put more weight on the negative one. Recommended field journal, and it was in fact eventually published in the top field journal. Fair and constructive comments. Overall efficient and fair but demanding process. Referees didn't get the point of the paper, my fault. rejected by editor, saying should submit to other similar journal. Zero constructive comments! 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). Cantillon is not a good editor. 2 constructive reports that improve the paper after 2 months. Job Market - Economics End of story. The low-quality report won out Reject with two solid reports. Editor reject due to relevance. He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. 3 more months for two reports containing blatant mistakes and outrageous claims that have nothing to do with the paper. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. Unfair letter from Emi N. Great letters from four referees and three of them are very positive!
How Long Does Squirty Cream Last Once Opened, 2 Minute Speech About Millennial Generation, The Roast Of Justin Bieber Full Special, Golden Retriever Rescue Manchester, Clear Brook High School Stabbing, Articles E