Economic Theory Bulletin. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. Checked status online after a month to see the outcome. Editor did seem to have read the paper, possibly in more detail than the referee who comments several thing that was included in paper. Anyway, the editor letter mentiones out of scope, and blaims it on our lack of (maybe interest in ?) Good experience, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. superficial comment. Desk reject after 27 days by Kurt Mitman. No negative comments from referees on the substance, but one referee just didn't like it. Most dishonest rejection. Not interested in the topic, acceptable decision. fast response but low quality referee reports, fast and reliable journal. I then spent 2+ months revising, only to be rejected (after another two months), no new reports, but detailed comments from the editor. The referees made good points. Excellent experience. They said they could not find reviewers. This journal provides a lot of details to track your paper (in total, we got 6 change of status), however, the whole process took almost 6 months but the referee reports were ready in less than 2 months (probably because they get paid since submission is USD250). a? An extremely meager, short, embarassing, useless report. Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. Very good experience, competent referees and quick feedback after the resubmission. Highly recommend this journal for a paper that wouldn't make it to top 5. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. Felt somewhat subjective. Very good experience. It was clear that the referees read the paper and provided appropriate comments. Two reports. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. Then again, it only took a couple of weeks to get the rejection. Two rounds of review. Editorial office very helpful. Desk rejected after one day due to poor fit. What would be a fair solution to racial reconcilation issues in the USA? 2.5 months to get a RR. Job Market. Disappointing referee: a few useful comments, but mostly low-grade and somewhat hostile. Referees rejected. Well-run journal. Useful comments from editor; one really great ref. Editor (Voth) was polite but did not say much. Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. Says model's too complex then suggests an addition which would have tripled the state space. 6 months to receive half-assed & useless referee reports and request for major revisions. "not enough contribution". Revise and resubmit. Overall, I was very pleased with the process. An uprising journal so I recommend people to publish here. Long wait. Contacting the editor twice did not result in speeding up the process (but we received at least a reply). The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it. Paper drastically improved through process. Economics, Tenured/Tenure-track Advertiser: Various departments, New York University Shanghai Field(s) of specialization: Econometrics - Microeconomics Editor says, "your paper poses only a very marginal contribution to the literature in theoretical economics. Shleifer was the editor. Most of the refs did not read the paper, or only skimmed it. One report was very useful. Referee did clearly said that the main mechanism is not compelling but did not give a single word on why our argument is persuasive or what else we could do to improve. Referee claims no revisements were made after substantial revisements were made and detailed. The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress. Rejected within a few hours - unclear that associate editor had read the paper carefully, rather than just the limited 100 word abstract, since comments repeated points made within the paper. One referee commented that we didn't make a methodological contribution and asked why economists should care about Y. Form letter from the editor. Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. Not because of the decision but due the letter content. One rubbish review from a referee who had no idea what the paper was about. The editor barely read the paper and decided to just reject it At least it was quick response - 11 days. Editor misread the title and barely read the abstract. Post an advertisement. No ref reports, 1 sentence from editor. Many thanks to the editor for most constructive comments. One reviewer gave very constructive suggestions. 18 days, no indication that either adstract or paper was read. Even though the outcome is positive, I blame the editor for not selecting competent enough referees to begin with. Answer (1 of 10): I would highly recommend UChicago for you. Terribly disappointing experience. Very bad reports. The editor (Hongbin Li) rejects because of lack of fir with the journal's mission. After that Editor took 2 months to answer positively to my R&R. Desk rejection came in 10 days. Overall good experience. Poor / no justification for decision. The outcome (referee rejection) was acceptable but 5 month waiting is a large waste of time! Thanks Amy! Based on the comments of one more referee with few points, he rejects. "Paper not of general interest, try sending to a field journal". Could've desk-rejected instead of two useless referee reports. One stern but very helpful referee report (five pages, competent and extremely detailed) in two weeks. Currently under R&R at a journal with the same ranking. 3rd review was pending. Horrible experience. I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. Editor was US-based and said that she likes the idea though! Desk reject in a week. Good process (and none of the coauthors are from 02139). Too narrow-minded editor. 1 insanely negative liquid poop all over my paper, most of it provably wrong. Rejected by an Associate Editor, who actually read the paper, got the main idea clearly, and wrote a 2 full-page report with reasoning why this is not for JET and what journal outlets might be considered. Development Economics, Family Economics, Gender Economics, Domestic Violence Durandard, Tho: Kellogg School of Management . Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. It took them 10 months to say anything and at the end even though the referees asked for revisions and were positive the editor rejected the paper. 1 suggested r&r other reject, AE decided to reject--fair decision. Expensive but quick. two referees with constructive comments, one referee rather negative and no substantial comment. The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! Suggested top field journal. Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. Editor makes no attempt to reconcile conflicting reports or, One good referee report. Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. Although my manuscript wa based on stochastic processes, editor rejected it since they were not expert in applied econometrics. Very good referee reports. Reviewers made many incorrect comments and almost no useful comments, editor straight up said didn't read the paper, but reviewers are negative so reject. Rejected for not significant enough contribution. Very useful comments from referees. Two reports -- one good (mostly cosmetic changes), one very short. Found out it was rejected only by contacting them. Editor couldn't find referees, rejected and claimed two reports but only one sent. First report was helpful, second one was literally 2 lines. FYI: Your editor sucks). Due to a "typographical error" in sending me an email, I had to wait an extra month (and after I emailed asking for a status update) to learn of the rejection - wasting time I could have spent submitting it to another journal. Editor like the paper but their hands were tied, I guess. So, I "told mother", and she was like "What is Edge-mer? Very disappointing experience. Submitted reports from a previous (close) referee rejection at a higher ranked journal. Still got rejected. Good experience. Two very good referee reports. Terribly run journal and I wouldn't advise anyone to submit there. I am very surprised by this unprofessional oversight. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. It details the following: Preparing to go on the job market. Desk reject in a few hours with very impersonal email. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again, Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees. 16 hour turnaround with nice letter of thoughtful comments suggesting more specialized journal. Bad experience overall. Ref #1 created new issues after I addressed his first round. Referee makes a factually inaccurate claim about previous research, and misinterprets interaction terms. One referee reports is only 2 short paragraphs long and completely wrong. Good report, positive rec. Placement Administrator: Stephanie Burbank 650-725-6198 sburbank@stanford.edu. In all the rejection was fair. To get rejected in a good journal, that is ok since it is part of the business but waiting 10 moths for refereee reports of that quality was a really bad deal. The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. It took 7 months until the JORS provided two referee reports of poor quality (one refere suggested to replace GMM with FE regression because it is impossible to solve endogeneity completely). Reject and resubmit. The referee completely misunderstood a *very* basic primary school model and then went on to criticize and complain about the empirical results. Poor quality reports. Proved to be quite true. Great process, fortunate to make it past desk as LRM grad student, very helpful ref report received 8 days after submission. Desk rejected after more than 5 months, avoid, International Review of Applied Economics, receive first response within 2 weeks. Although the paper fits to one of their categories. 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. I wrote the editor but nothing changed. short straightforward paper, should take max 2 hours to read carefully,still under review, editor (Hall) non-responsive, waiting 30 months for response, editor not responding to inquiries. Helpful and fair referee reports. The editor decided major revision. +6 months for a desk rejection without a single comment. Overall decent and professional expert reports. Never deal with stupid journal anymore. Withdrew my paper after 8 months of no contact from Editor, referee, etc. The status has been "Pending Editor Triage" for 10 months. 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. This is designed to reduce the overall turnaround time for the journal, especially given the high volume of submissions." 1 fair and 1 insulting referee report after waiting more than 10 months! One very good and one very weak report. PhD & Postdoctoral Research Fellow Job Market Candidates 2022 - 2023 Home Page CV ANDREW HANNON PHD Research Fields: Macroeconomics, Household Finance, Sovereign Debt, Financial Stability and the Housing Market Job Market Paper: Falling Behind: Delinquency and Foreclosure in a Housing Crisis References: Dr. . One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. Long and slow desk reject. Crawford rejects although refs and editor recommends revision. The referee told us to delete the literature review. No surprising, but referee report was sloppy and incorrect. Do not send your papers to this journal. Surprisingly, she had one-page long useful comments, which helped improve the paper. Editor seemed to have liked the paper despite ref rejection. reports. One report only, not very helpful, relatively slow for just one report. Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. Overall good experience. Seemed like he carefully considered the paper. Bad experience overall, although the reports came quickly. Disappointed with the result, but the experience was okay. desk rejected. Two very poor referee reports. The second one was a "consultation by telephone" but no feedback to us. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. Incredibly fast review process, on this occasion. Desk reject within two days. Long time to edit and format after acceptance. The third was R&R, and was more substantive. Desk reject within 5 days. Very efficiently run journal. totally useless editor. Another one was sharp. Fast response within one week. I stopped reading after that). Editor rejected without comments. 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). 2 years no reply, then short letter and reject, I would never send there again. Editor mentioned additional points and suggested a field journal as an alternative. Extremely slow journal and not well managed journal. very comprehensive report. The decision is quite fair and briefly justified. 1 Month from Submission to a very positive R&R. One good and two useless reports. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. Moderately useful reports. one ok report, one very hostile. Excellent process. Journal always replied to me saying it is delayed and I finally withdrew after 2 years with no response. View Board. Decision by editor (Mark Taylor): minor revision and resubmit. Both have suggestions (one extensive, one less so). Conveyed no sense at all that anyone even looked at the paper. Reviewing all the documents, she does not like the paper: rejection with 800 words of blabla. At least response in 1.5 month. 1 good report and 1 not so good. I will try in the future. 3 months for a summary reject by the editor. Ass editor wrote some useful comments.