Avoid if you can. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. Quite annoyed at this journal - AE provided verbatim the referee rejection from another submission journal from three months prior. Won't be doing that again Actually, it was a Reject and Resubmit because the editor liked the paper, but the reviewer was really harsh and not really understood the paper. Very efficient journal, 3 very helpful reports from a coeditor and 2 referees. Desk reject in a few hours with very impersonal email. Not belonging to the club implies rejection. I want my money back ! Fair enough. 1 months for desk reject. Quick desk rejection from the Editor (about a week). Is "have u told ur mother" am automated script, or truly deranged person? Heard nothing and received no replies to my emails. Handling editor still rejects for unclear reasons; very frustrating, but at least fairly timely. 1 really excellent, positive report. Efficient process and fast decision. I dont care whether you want to increase citations and impact factor fo your journal. The reports were very useful and the referees seemed to have given the paper a very careful reading. Editor was polite. Very quick and professional editing. Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. Hard to believe. Per editor, not good fit for IO bent of the journal, not broad enough for general interest journal. Following a previous piece of info: Desk rejected by another editor after almost 2 months, looking at the reason for rejecting the paper I had the feeling the editor did not read the paper. Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. Three months. Do not send your papers to this journal. Wish the outcome was different, but the turnaround time couldn't have been better. Two referees were lukewarm but couldn't really point out too much that was wrong. Fast turnaround. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. 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), Majewska (TSE), Seibel (Zurich), Deng (UMD), Lesellier (TSE), Vanhapelto (TSE), Suzuki (PSU), Leroutier (SSE), Lorentzen (BI Oslo), Guigue (CREST), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Bou Sleiman (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Moreno-Maldonado (CUNEF), Khalifa (AMSE), Kondziella (IIES), Merilinen (ITAM); see https://www.helsinkigse.fi/events/category:job-talk, Assistant/Associate/Full Professor - Environmental Economics, Song (USC), Kwon (Cornell), Sileo (Georgetown), Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Hyuk-soo Kwon (Cornell University), Sean McCrary (University of Pennsylvania), Gretchen Sileo (Georgetown), Stephanie Weber (Yale University), Sadhika Bagga (UT Austin), Ricardo Marto (University of Pennsylvania), Martin Souchier (Stanford University). Reports were okay but in the end not that helpful. Very useful referee reports. Constructive referee report. 1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals. One of them gave some good suggestions, but I disagree with some other points she made. The referee report was very poor. Quick -- 3 days after editor was assigned. Was rejected today by editor as only 1/2 referee reports submitted. First response in less than 3 months. Very good editor recommending a field journal. Withdrew July 31, 2017. 2 reports and 2 rounds. Most efficient experience with journals ever! Great management by editorial board although disappointing result. Very good experience overall. 2.5 weeks. Good referee reports about key aspects of the research question framing and relevance. Two reports negative and one positive, editor chooses to reject. Modifications responded mainly to the good report. Applied Economics was usually getting back to me in 6 months or even more, this time I had great experience. Overall, very good experience. My fault for not discussing that up front. If? but i think it is an important one that should be considered a bonafide econ journal. The Editor is regular contributor to that mistake and provided non-sensical rejection. Slow. Interesting use of a referee's time. After 4 months it remained Under review and these comments I get from the Reviewer: "You have a good idea. One is very productive while the other is suck. Nice experience despite a rejection. Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. Disappointing experience. Efficient process, stuck to advertised timings. Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. One good referee, one ok, one terrible. Editor misread the title and barely read the abstract. Referee reports were lenthy and very useful. 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. Avoid at all cost. Rejection came on Easter morning. 1 R&R round. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. I was very grateful despite the rejection. Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that! 1 report half page long. Would submit again. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. Completely unacceptable. Then the referee gave their answer in 2 weeks. A good journal, Quick and fair outcome with a nice response from the editor, Good experience with every step completed in a timely fashion. Three short reports. Jerome Adda was editor. Editor (and referees) rejected based on bad fit and offered suggestions for where to submit next. I had much better experience in American Journal of Health Economics. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied. OK process, but some reports were useless. Very positive experience. We did. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). 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. Two horribly low quality reports. Otherwise, great experience. It has had it uses as a source of gossip but it accumulated the worst of any group of mostly 20 something American men. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. Co-editor rejects because contribution is not big enough to warrant publication. It's quick, but the reports are really bad and unhelpful. Faster than I expected given horror stories i have heard here and elsewhere, and with good comments from refs and editor. The paper is in between energy and finance, and the referees were more knowledgable of Energy than Finance, where our approach is more standard I'd say. The literature review was complete! Very helpful referee reports. Then one round of R&R and second referee changed his mind. General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,806) Micro Job Rumors (15,245) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,027) China Job Market (103,534) Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. Desk rejection (standard email). Waited over 9 month for a half-page low quality report. The referee report was more appropriate for R&R. Very efficient, good reports. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. Nice editor message. Though reports with constructive comments, Tough and fair refereeing. Nice experience. Job Description Linkedin.com. Extremely valuable referee reports and advices from the editor. I am not in a club, whatever it is.). Desk reject within 1 day. All queries tough but manageable - only difficulty was having 3 refs say sometimes contradictory things. 100 days for 2 useless reports showing lack of understanding of whats going on in the paper, Nice and quick, but bad experience. Paper has since been published. Transfer from another Elsevier journal. Rejected with one referee report in just under a month. Extremely fast and thoughtful. Very good journal, with reactive editorial assistant (Sabah Cavalo), and very good and constructive comments. Two straightforward R&R recommendations from referees. Not a great experience. Very disappointing experience with the journal and refereeing process. I waited for seven months, only to receive one superficial referee report. Overall positive experience. Great experience overall, Editor decided not to wait for the late referee not to slow down the process. Worst experience ever. The other referee was also good and liked the paper. Advisors: Robert Seamans (Chair), Gino Cattani, Sinziana Dorobantu, Arun Sundararajan. Deadline: 2023-03-06. Bad experience. Editor decided to reject because he could only find one person to review. It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. From here on, AEJs are the way to go outside top 5. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. RAND prefers IO topic. Crawford rejects although refs and editor recommends revision. "Paper not of general interest, try sending to a field journal". The other referee was very positive but the editor followed the negative report. One low quality (taste-based) referee report. Awful experience. Three months for an "out of scope" decision. Very disappointing experience. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. Largely fair points. Lowest quality referee reports ever received. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. did not refund the submission fee. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". Would submit again. 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. It has been about 16 months now. The editor emailed me after 6 days and said he read and liked the paper. It took 6 months a referee to look at the paper and decide that it does not make enough contribution to be published in this journal (very smart idea). One referee report was super helpful. They have officially adopted the policy of not giving reasons for desk rejections given the 75% desk rejection rate. Much better than plain vanilla Economics Letters. I haven't received the first response yet. All reports were useful and very demanding. Very quick process! Very fast process, that is why I submitted to the journal. Absolutely pathetic. Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. On the downside, the time between each of the two rounds of R&R was longish. Assistant Professor, Macroeconomics. great experience. A colleague from another school submitted there and also had to wait a long time for very poor quality referee reports. Editor appeared to have at least glanced at the paper. I really appreciated the clarity the editor provided in helping to navigate the referee reports. highly unprofessional, the report is not useful, comments make little sense and contradict to the extant literature on the topic. Excellent desk reject by Larry S. Recommended a field journal by the editor. Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. Two rounds of review. Very professional way of handling the process, Very helpful report which has permitted to increase the quality of the paper. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. 1 very useful report and associate editor comments. One referee read the paper line by line and gave constructive comments. One seems to be written by a first-year bachelor student. No refund. Learn More About Katia. The paper was under minor revisions. A bit slow, but kindly acknowledged by the editor. The other was much more careful. Best experience in my long career (20+ years, 10+ top publications). Revised carefully and resent, then they sent to another editor and another reviewer whose report contradicted the first and was very vague. writing? desk rejected after thee months. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. I didn't expect an accept here, but I def did not expect to be rejected on the grounds of such poor review reports. Overall great experience. 1 on the fence. Referee claims no revisements were made after substantial revisements were made and detailed. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. First two reports were "not general interest enough" and didn't have much to say substantively as a result (1-2 pages). I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!! The editor barely read the paper and decided to just reject it At least it was quick response - 11 days. Editor didn't even read the paper and rejected it. desk with a letter from editor. In-depth argumentation why there is no sufficient progress compared to common wisdom. Very well-run journal. Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal. 2 months for a generic desk rejection with no comment whatsoever.. but of course I am not in the club. Over 8 weeks for a desk reject due to poor fit for journal. Two referee reports were really good. Tough but fair ref reports that raise valid questions. Constructive and helpful comments from the co-editor. Will submit again. One report was very useful and of very good quality, the other was of good quality but not very useful. Absolutely idiotic low-quality comments. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. editor obviously read the paper (indicated by reference to appendix figure in the letter); nice and helpful comments. Editor mentioned delay is mainly the result of needing to get a second editorial assessment which suggested this paper's arguments are more likely to find a responsive audience in a different journal.

East Providence Police Department Officers, Minecraft:efficiency 1000 Pickaxe Command, Articles E