Very quick response. Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. very efficient. Quite useful to provide further extensions, Fast processing and three excellent referees that helped to substantially improved the paper. 10 months is too long to get back. One was thoughtful report, pointed to at least one direction we can improve. Had to send several emails inquiring about the status. Fair report but not anything that couldn't be corrected in R&R. Journal always replied to me saying it is delayed and I finally withdrew after 2 years with no response. A couple nice comments from Shleifer after two days. Not clear if the paper was even read. Submitting to JME first was really worth it. Nice experience. Fairly quick acceptance. it.?I? 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. Paper went multiple rounds over 2 years. Very efficient process, paper improved with referee comments. Extremely outdated econometric "suggestions" and an overall lack of understanding. Gave a quick explanation and said they did a thorough read of the paper. AER:Insights. One is very productive while the other is suck. Waited about a month for the first decision, just a few days for the (very minor) revisions. The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. The editor did not read the paper and just sided with the hostile referee. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. Will submit there in the future. Learn More About Katia. 2 minutes passed between receiving editor name an receiving desk rejection. A very detailed and fair review of our research, providing a balanced judgement of our achievements. Very quick and professional editing. The results just didn't fit their priors. Long process but well worth it! They are also very slow! The time to response is not long as well. Very helpful feedback that made this a better paper. Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. Good experience. Editor decided to not even send the revised paper back to the referees. Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade, Fair and efficient process. Quick response within three days. two positive reports and one strongly negative report; the editor Andrew Street gave me a R&R; after I spent one month writing a 30-page response, the negative referee still argued against my paper based on his misunderstanding of my paper; the editor finally chose to reject my paper based on the comments of this referee without careful reading. This is expected as I am not part of the editor's inner circle. It was very smooth. Comments were helpful. Editor appeared to have at least glanced at the paper. Editor not helpful at all. So unprofessional and shameful. Quick and well handled by the editor. Referee comments were pretty minor. Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. Very efficient process, better than expected. A true scholar and a gentleman. What is left to say? low-quality referee reports. Very mixed report quality. Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. Heckman handled paper. great experience. Young is defined by the year of the first publication in any form. Very disappointing to have no word on a paper that got R&R with minor revisions in a similar ranked journal half a year later, Desk rejection after three months, editor apologized for delay, Desk accepted, sent to R&R for less than a month. The paper is mostly empirical and they asked for massive extension of the dataset. About 10 weeks from submission to referee reject. Will never submit again to ER. Sadly, no mention of why paper was rejected (only minor issues raised). Where would you rank Michigan/Ross finance now? The editor claimed that himself and another associate editor read the paper. At least was fast at just over two months. Very poor referee reports. superficial comment. Also good editing support. And I've recently reviewed a closely related paper for the EER that got a revise-and-resubmit, so you'd think the topic must be interesting enough. I will never submit these bullshits to the editor who trusts me. Katz rejected in less than 24 hours with some comments. The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. It's the kind of disappointment that makes you stop caring about research. Very efficient process. nice letter from editor, good and fair comments, 1 ref report good. happy with outcome. Two reports, both harsh and recommended reject. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. Not even a single remotely useful comment. One report was very positive, but the second one looked like it was written in ten minutes citing four papers of his own. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. The main sugguestion is to come up with a theoretical model and erase half of the work done. +6 months for a desk rejection without a single comment. Very efficient process. Although the suggested changes would have made the paper way too long for an EL pub. Rapid desk reject - editor stated paper was rejected because of applied context (sports), Good reports, led to significantly better paper, Good experience, nice though critical editor, total time to acceptance 10 months. All editors have lined up to publish their own papers (just see the forthcoming papers, 3 (three!!) Journal of Economics and Finance Education. The editor, not having confidence in the reports, decided to reject, I believe. There are several claims that are either wrong or very poorly explained (e.g., a Nash equilibrium need not be Pareto optimal!). Comments dubious at best. No refund. A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. After 10 months, my manuscript was still listed as "awaiting referee assignment", and no one at the journal would respond to my e-mails about the paper, so I withdrew it. Who are these people?? Some helpful comments. The referee did not read the first sentence of the paper and was not familiar with the literature. Disappointed. 2.5 months to desk reject. Took some time due to lots of things to revise, but all the requests were fair. Overall experience is good. I contacted the journal about that but no response. Update to previous pending post. Resubmitted after 3+ months of work, but replies to referees went lost and paper got rejected. Insightful and constructive comments. Three reports, all of high quality, within 2 months. Secodn editor waited almost 6 weeks after receiving the referee reports. Clearly a club journal. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. Advisor: Prof. Caterina Calsamiglia. Bad Experience. 4 months for a desk rejection, frustratingly slow. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. EJM - Econ Job Market Very well-run journal. Useful reports. Avoid that journal. Recently Announced. Very slow in responding inquiries. 2010 . One was more helpful than the other. One referee gave lots of great comments, while the other referee was pretty much useless. referee and AE comments, OK at best. Seems to be unfit the reviewing editor's preference but the handling editor was kind though. 48hr desk rejection with a weird comment from the editor; You did not address related marketing literature! Editor said all refs must agree for acceptance but only one ref report provided! This? Bad experience overall. The report is rubbish and incorrect. It took more than 2 months for desk reject. Really quick response and decent referee report. Never would have won that person over. Other referee reports are okay, not very useful. Suggested different journals, very efficient. Super fast and clear feedback. Editor clearly asked some half-literate grad student to write a negative review. Waste of time and money. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit. Nice experience despite a rejection. Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it. 1 insanely negative liquid poop all over my paper, most of it provably wrong. Quick desk reject with a few comments from the editor. 100 USD for such VALUABLE suggestion. desk rejection in 2 weeks. The reviewer and the editor did not understand the paper. Finally, I have now wothdrawn my paper. Four RR rounds. Is "have u told ur mother" am automated script, or truly deranged person? EconJobRumors Wiki This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. 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. The editor said there was issues with finding referees. Job Market. Within a week with no justification. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. The second one is ok, but rejects for some peculiar reasons. Very quick. Accepted 4 days after resub. Paper drastically improved through process. Editor does not even both to check referee letter. I was politely told that I should have cited more JRU papers. Good reports with decent suggestions. After waiting for more than 5 months I got 0 Referee reports and a rejection based on very loose comments. President, University of Applied Sciences in Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 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. I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable commentvery well run journal, fast and no submission fee! Economic Theory Bulletin. Thorough referee reports with substantive comments. avoid. 2 rounds of r&r. Good reports. 3 rounds then rejected by editor, paper was improved by addressing reviewers' comments, eventually accepted at RFS, Cam Harvey gave useless report; obvious outgoing editor is obvious. the difference was not economically meaningful. One very thorough that discussed on every paper point.Good experience, out of scope for this journal, although the most cited paper in this journal also addresses the same research problem, Bad experience. Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. 2 referee reports. Placements of Recent Economics Graduates. Editor rejected based on that. Bunche Hall 8292. fast response but low quality referee reports, fast and reliable journal. 2 weeks. In general, it is difficult to follow the derivations due to a lack of intuitive explanations. Second round 4 months before acceptance. 1 on the fence. Both reports are not really useful. Econ Job Market Rumors | Now Hiring - CareHealthJobs Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. Desk rejected in 10 days because the editor wasn't a fan of the data. Rogerson very quickly pointed out the paper did not merit publication. Avoid at all cost. Desk after 1 day from Katz, very polite and parsing of the paper, although not GI. Terrible referee did not understand LATE and simply could not be satisfied. Two very poor referee reports. A stronger editor could have handled the submission more efficiently also pointing out the weakness of the 2nd report. Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. Would not bother again. Instead, the reviewer says you did not cite a literature that is totally beside the point, the main concept of your paper is not mentioned not even once in that literature. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. 2 weeks to desk reject. Editor then read the paper and rejected it. **** this journal. A Doctorate level degree in Economics or related fields, or expect to receive it in 2023 with strong background in empirical analysis and policy-focused research. Overall, I was disappointed not by the outcome per se, which is part of the game, but by the poor judgment of the referee. Paper is about a politically charged issue, so I would like to think that more than one reviewer should be asked to submit a report.