Pretty stupid rationale based on lack of methodological innovation. 2 months for desk rejection is awkward. 2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. One good report and the other mediocre. Too slow. This was after a 6 month wait and emails to the editor to follow up. Welcome to the Mathematics Jobs Wiki 2021-2022 research positions page. The status has been "Pending Editor Triage" for 10 months. Some useful comments, most misreads and poor understanding of model. The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. Efficient process, stuck to advertised timings. Good reports and no nitpicking on the revision. the? R&R only one round; after submitting the revised version, only waited for six days until final acceptance. Modifications responded mainly to the good report. Seems largely like the referee just didn't like it and the editor wanted there to be more significant results (publication bias at its best). Desk rejected with 1 sentence after 2 months. Assistant Professor, Macroeconomics. A bit slow, but kindly acknowledged by the editor. Armstrong is so much better than Hermalin 6 months for the first R&R (2 referee reports plus a very detailed report from the editor), then 3 months for the 2nd R&R, then the paper was accepted. Two useful reports that improved the paper. one positive, one negative report. Editor provided a letter with comments. I suspect either grad students or people outside of the field. Much better than overal reputation of journal. 3 reports. One of the best outlet for phd students. Clearly, this journal is the main outlet for randomized trial papers and not much else. Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. That's not true. Editor should know better. Desk rejected after a week with no comments. Wonderful experience overall. placement@econ.ucla.edu. Great management by editorial board although disappointing result. 3 reports. 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. if we go by his saying, then all finance articles are purely pointless. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. Enough said. The paper was published in 2016, Decent referee reports that indeed improve the paper. Overall good experience. Was pleased with the process, besides the rejection. Referee comments show that it could be an RR but the editor rejected. Not to say, the shortcoming is an accepted norm till one finds a better way. Reports were not very helpful. Desk reject within two days. Very helpful reports and overall a smooth process. Associate editors are very professional. Placement Officers: Pete Klenow 650-725-2620 klenow@stanford.edu. Rejection after 3 days. Excellent Experience. reviewer knew an aspect of the literature and appeared to promote his own unpublished paper under review at the same journal. Amazing efficiency. 2 days from submission to desk rejection. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. Welcome to the EconTrack Job Market Information Board, a service hosted by the AEA. Second was uninformative. I don't know what to add. completely ?misread? Law School. Would not hesitate to submit to this journal in the future. The editor-in-chief writes, "Although the question you address and your results are interesting, in my view the paper is a poor fit for GEB's readership..". 1 reviewer was clearly an expert, 2 others were less thorough than might be expected, one recommended R&R the other did not read the paper was clearly ideologically biased, the editor sided with the latter, Quick process, referees made some good comments, not a bad experience, one positive referee report, one negative referee report. Good experiences --- fast (1 month for both the first and R&R round), good reports, editor is also very helpful. (This would have been easy to see from reading the intro before sending this to reviewers why not desk-reject instead of wasting author and reviewer time?). Desk reject within 1 day. 1 lukewarm, lazy report with many mistakes. I want to express my thankness to a refreee, who provded an exremly high quality report. Good experience. Editor rejected. Also very fast. Please Login or . 1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. Quick desk reject after less than 24 hours without comments, annoying given the submission fee. Never deal with stupid journal anymore. Fast and fair enough. His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting Decision based on 1 one-paragraph review that didn't refer to anything specific in the paper. 2 positive. reject after 3 months. Editor acted as 4th referee once referees were satisfied. Really improved the paper. One reviewer is helpful, another needs to retake econometrics course. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. quick turnaround and helpful referee report. faculty) positions. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. In-depth, high quality referee reports. Some reviewers disappeared after the first review, the editors could't even find an alternative, and the comments were not assessed critically by the editors due to an editorial change. Long and bad reviewing process. The paper was "with the editor". Awful experience. My worst experience ever. Job Market - Economics reports. KS super smart and constructive feedback. The reviews were short and gave some good feedback. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. Mediocre assessment from referee with some helpful suggestions. Very good experience overall. Bad experience waiting for and ultimately receiving two relatively useless reviews for a comment/note (paper < 10 pages including title/abstract page, references, and tables). Waited 6 months for one report, from which it was clear that the referee hadn't even read the paper properly. Long time to first response and had to chase up editor, but comments were helpful and editor was very engaged in the revision process. Quality suggestions from all three reports & editor. What is left to say? It's the kind of disappointment that makes you stop caring about research. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable commentvery well run journal, fast and no submission fee! one referee report was in after three months, AE waited 9 months before making a recommendation. Particularly, one of the referees seemed like he didn't read a single word past the intro. So-so report. Editor does not made any comment, probably has not read the paper at all. Generally not 5-star experience but worth submitting there if your paper is relevant. Editor response, not a fit to the journal, too theory! Currently 20 months of waiting after first submission. Desk reject after 3 days. and then took another seven months. The time to response is not long as well. Rubbish report ! After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. 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. One quite short referee report. Good experience. paper rejected after one round of R&R due to extremely negative attitude of the one referee. Great experience! Fair decision. Desk reject in a few days. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. Finance Job Rumors (489,491) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,777) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,013) China Job Market (103,528) Industry Rumors (40,348) Both reviewers were positive suggested R&R. Don't think they even bothered reading the first page. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. The time was not long (bit less than 10 weeks), the outcome was what is normal in this profession (Referee rejection). Recommended to aim for field journals. Excellent reports. One short and one longer report. Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. Several rounds of mildly encouraging R&R reports, then paper was lost. Very fair. The referee reports were crap (minor points without really saying anything about the research question, the methodology and the results of the paper). Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! Editor actually read the paper. Unfortunately, this is my usual experience with EER. Less than two months for very minor revision request. Referee 1 happy with resubmission (no further comments), referee 2 suggested rejection or major rewriting. a bit slowtwo general positive+one negative reports, and the editor rejected itfeel sad, but not too bad experience Average (low) quality reports. R&R after 3-4 months. Editor at least seemed to have given a pretty detailed reading of the paper, but was disappointed with the amount of time it took for a desk rejection. 10 months is too long to get back. Two referees, two weak R&Rs, editor rejects despite the recommendations of referees. 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). One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. 4 months for a desk rejection based on what it appears to be a very superficial reading of the abstract. The editor does not respond to emails. Same referee takes about half an hour to conclude the math is wrong, yet takes 5 months to submit his report. Fast and uninformative. The referee reports were good. Very poor quality referee report after waiting for more than 7 months. Fair rejection. quick. 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. Very good referee report. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. Very pleased. First report provided helpful insights, second - only half page of general comments. Very slow. Editor sent it to peer review in one day. If this journal wants to publish high quality papers, it needs to pick someone better than Joerg Baten who actually reads the papers before he accepts/rejects, etc. Rejected afterwards. Editor rejected on the basis of being too narrow. Fast process, but very poor reviewer report. Both reports were very shorts (one was just a few lines). Also sent some emails to the editors but have no replies. Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. In really sped things up. Expected better from an AEJ. I sent an email after 5 months of submission and another after 6 months. The process was very fast. He clearly did not read the paper and wrote a pretty much standard rejection that had nothing to do with the paper. The editor, Gideon Saar, was lazy and did not read the paper. The editor (George Weebly) made inconsistent statements that did not match with the statments in the paper or from the refrees.The referees made good comments. Fast editors. Job Market. Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. National Bureau of Economic Research. Rejected after revision, very good comments in initial round. First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. Journal of the European Economic Association. Bad experience. The referee report was more appropriate for R&R. Based on the large volume of submissions we receive bla bla, Unfathomably long time to first decision, referee comments impleid the paper was not read diligently, despite being just 4-5 pages. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. Editor uninterested. Mentioned that they do not consider theoretical papers. Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Did get a field journal suggestion and a refund of submission fees. Reasonable response. A couple nice comments from Shleifer after two days. Reports were split. Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data. Weak reports with many assertaions that were simply untrue. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. Fast. It was clear the editor asked a former student to be the referee, I guess the editor does not feel positively about the paper. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Great experience - referee and editor very helpful. Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Placement Administrator: Stephanie Burbank 650-725-6198 sburbank@stanford.edu. Submitted August 14, 2015. The referee was clearly trying to protect his own paper on a related topic; half of the bullet points referred to that paper. Apparent that editor read the paper. Worst experience I have ever had. Rejected within 24hrs by Katz. Good experience. No feedback at all. Your paper is not fit for public choice try with public economics. Took a year for the paper to get accepted. (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Very quick response from Editor (Otrok) after revision. Simply put, the reviewer does not believe in my results (simulations from calibrated macroeconomic model). One recommended reject, the other R&R. Overall fair process. Constructive feedback from AE.
