econ job market rumors wiki

Good experience, even my paper was rejected. Easiest publication of my life! Fast process and 2 helpful ref. Referee reject without any comments after 14 months of chasing the journal. after more than 3 months still "with editor". 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. Not so many comments; recommended two very good field journals. Editorial office very helpful. plus for a quick turnaround. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. BTW if one of the referee goes for RR, I would have to wait for a third referee report (lucky me?). Editor handled it well. this journal is very inefficient in processing submissions and re-submissions. 3 Top 5 referees and editor said the paper was a good fit for ReStat, meh Amitabh Chandra rejected in one month with no infomation. However, once the paper was assigned to referees, the speed was normal. Tough, but fair referees. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. Editor probably didn't go beyond the abstract. Desk reject in two days for not being general enough, $132 fee not refunded. Reports were of moderate quality. Referee comments were pretty minor. Long wait but not a bad experience overall, referee comments were useful. After waiting for 9 months, I sent an email to the editor asking about the paper status. Almost zero substantive comments on the technical part and not surprising that it was sloppy handling given that it was Pop-Eliches who was the co-editor. the? Good handling by the editor (Reis). Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. Editor followed the second report. Didn't refund the submission fee. Crappy reports. 2 was more critical. I want to express my thankness to a refreee, who provded an exremly high quality report. 9 months to one ref report which was not helpful. Editor rejected. Where would you rank Michigan/Ross finance now? That mean 5 people read my paper? Waited about a month for the first decision, just a few days for the (very minor) revisions. Referee report was short and commented on halve of the paper. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. AE decided to reject! International Review of Financial Analysis. Home. 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. Constructive referee report. Long reports with some good comments. But then, it took 20 weeks until we got the acceptance. Not too bad an experience. Decision was made in 45 days. Two of three referees did not read the paper. Desk reject within 5 days. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. Super fast review. One referee report was very detailed. Recommended a more specialized journal to try next. Mostly decent reports raising fair points, OK experience. PhD Program Administrator: Mirtha Cabello, cabello@bu.edu, (617) 353-4454. Excellent reports that really improved the paper. Incredibly tough process with three rounds of revisions - first round ended up me writing a response as long as the original paper. Nice process and outcome. Got published after three rounds. I was pleased with the experience because I've never made this far with them. The other was low quality and made factually incorrect statements that seemed to influence the associate editor's assessment of the manuscript. Very pleasant experience. I get it. Took 9 months for acceptance. Submitting to JME first was really worth it. 3 constructive and useful reports. No comments at all from editor other than generic stuff. Referee comments greatly improved the paper, editor was awesome. Paper was long and too dispersed at first, but the managing editor (Baptista) liked it, and the reviewers asked for changes while being receptive. The reports are also very helpful. Three weeks for a desk reject. Even though the outcome is positive, I blame the editor for not selecting competent enough referees to begin with. Both reports positive (one minor/one major revision recommended). This referee made no specific comments. Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. 1.5 weeks overall, Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics. 4 weeks for first response. Made paper better. Desk rejected in 2 weeks, editor recommended sending the paper to a field journal. Constructive feedback from AE. Good turnaround time. No progress in six months although I send emails to push. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. End of story. Good communication and seemed very efficient. 2 weeks for 2 high quality ref reports. Very bad experience. Are you seriously so focusing on submission fees instead of research itself? After resubmission, I was informed that the paper would be sent to another editor (Prof. Mallick). Recommended to try other health journals. After 4 months it remained Under review and these comments I get from the Reviewer: "You have a good idea. Good experience. The discussant in the shitty conf gives better comments. Apply for Market Access Asia region manager job with HPE in Taipei, Taipei City, 11568. And because he could not find theoretical contributions. Paper denounced an error on widely cited paper (unfairly comparing bootstrap vs asypmtotic theory with a nonpivot statistic!). Neither of the two reviewers seemed t have read the paper. Considering withdrawing. editor did not read the paper carefully, waste of US$250. Fair referee reports, but I had to wait pretty long. Homepage; A disappointment. Editors are not reading referee reports. Terrible editor. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. It took 5 months to get a desk reject, with a polite letter from the editor that the paper would be a good fit for a field journal. I resubmitted in January, and the paper was accepted with minor revisions in March. referee is very fast. Four line referee report written in a hurry before deadline and before ref obviously had to jet off on holiday. "Thank you for your paper. Split referees, Adda came down on the side of the negative ones. One referee report was very good; the second was also modestly helpful. Editor rejected because paper topic (public finance) is not what tey are currently looking for. one nasty and rudely written report with inaccuracies as well, one cited lack of fit. Sent it to EL on Christmas Eve, got the desk reject from Gomez right after Christmas on 26th for not enough contributions. Strong and professional editors! The other reviewer raised some minor issues. Referee didn't think the contribution is significant enough, so straight reject. I needed to contact the editorial office to know who the editor was, if the paper was sent to referess and etcc, and this after more than a month that the paper was submitted. No indication that the co-editor read the paper. Please add AERi to the combo box. 3 weeks. Accepted as it is. Less than a month for two strong referee reports on a non-experimental paper: useful suggestions and some parts of the paper were obviously not clear enough, although no intractable issues so rejection was disappointing. Would submit again. In terms of rejections this is probably as good as it gets. Excellent and clear communication with editors. Unbelievably fast and helpful. Quick -- 3 days after editor was assigned. Two referee reports, one engaged and constructive, the other written in incredibly poor English that took issue with some phrases I used. Two reports -- one good (mostly cosmetic changes), one very short. One week to accept. Very inefficient handling process. Good experience. Process was a complete disgrace. other outlets are suggested. Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. "not enough contribution". rejection. Katz rejected in less than 24 hours with some comments. Reports were split. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Very useful suggestions by the editor who read the paper carefully. The revised submission was accepted within a month. Referees asked for useless extensions and took more than six months in each round. Less than insightful comments by an editor clearly hastily read the paper. One positive and one negative report. One very good and helpful report. Fast and very competent review. It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. Clearly the referee was someone not in the field of the paper (Asset Pricing). Will submit again. happy with outcome. Harsh critical comments from the editor, a useful report from the referee. Georgetown University - McDonough School of Business, Associate Professor or Assistant Professor, International Political Economy, Georgetown University McDonough School of Business, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, International Finance/Macro - Macroeconomics; Monetary, Chaudary (Chicago Booth); Chan (Stanford); Minni (LSE); Vats (Chicago Booth), Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Giacomo Lanzani (MIT), Jacob Moscona (MIT), Agathe Pernoud (Stanford), Rahul Singh (MIT), Daniela Vidart (UCSD/UConn), Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, Assistant Professor of Economics and Public Policy, Christensen (UIUC AP) Reimers (Northeastern AP) Kwon (Cornell) Newberry (UGA AP) Lee (Princeton) Serna (Wisconsin) He (Yale) Alba (Toronto) Yang (Duke) Weber (Yale) Craig (Yale) Rogers (UCSD), International Economics/Industrial Organization, Yajie Wang (University of Rochester), Hyunji Song (Texas A&M University), Yumeng Gu (University of California-Davis), Yes (1st round complete. We asked to see the reports but the editor did not send them. Hellwig rejected, suggested 2nd tier journal such as ET. Portuguese Economic Journal* Great process. Said the contribution was not enough for a JFE publication. Finally, I have now wothdrawn my paper. One very grumpy referee report. Editor appeared to have at least glanced at the paper. Rejected afterwards. Editor did seem to have read the paper, possibly in more detail than the referee who comments several thing that was included in paper. is ?so ?poor? The AE's letter was useful, although no suggestion what to try next. 1 serious person pushing his method. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. I declined the offer to resubmit. Garbage journal, not a real journal, avoid. Avoid at all cost. Reasonable motivations for desk rejection provided, Fast desk rejection, poor targeting on my part, desk reject but with useful feedback from AE. RAND prefers IO topic. Editor read the paper and deskrejected in less than a week. Desk reject would have been more efficient, They editors are very efficient. Very poor handling by editor. Then again, it only took a couple of weeks to get the rejection. Very good experience. The editor rejected after 12 months mentioning 4 referee reports. Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. Ok experience. Surprisingly efficient process given the other comments here on the journal. Two referee reports: 1 seemed to miss basics of the paper and didn't provide useful insight/comments and the other was exhaustive, insightful, and useful moving forward. Referee reports were very brief and contained little in the way of substantive comments. Bad experience. Very nice editor. No comments from the editor though. Got two negative referee reports, where one in very useful, and the other is moderately so. Decent experience; overall fast, fair and constructive. Editor made some quick comments and recommended 3 journals a tier below. Very smooth process in general, no complaints. Editor (Rogerson) makes some encouraging comments but cannot hide the fact that the referees were not really that enthusiastic about the paper, even if they couldn't find much to criticize. Zero constructive comments! Department of Geography. Three rounds: one major + two minor (the last one being really minor, like copy-editing and missing references minor). Both reviewers were positive suggested R&R. Offers and negotiating. Fast and fair. Very complementary and helpful reviews. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Clearly the paper was not good enough for the JIE. 2 reports minimal work, 1 report some work. Five weeks, submission to rejection. ", Took two months to desk reject, although initial email assured of a very short response time for desk rejecttions, Desk rejected because of formatting issue but invited to resubmit; took a few days for desk rejectioin. Very efficient process, very good comments from both the reviewers and the editor. Submission is waste of time. get first response in 28 days. Useful reports, good summary by editor. You have to earn it! Rather pleasant experience. The editor suggested an alternative outlet, which was where the paper eventually got published. We regularly reject without referees the majority of all papers submitted to the QJE. Excellent Editorial Comments. referees said "nice but not great". Very useful comments from referees. OK comments from referee. Also, did not bother to understand the theoretical contribution. totally useless editor. Painfully crushing rejection, as all referees agreed it was a good paper, but had some valid concerns about length and possible general interest contribution. One very good report. These advices do make the paper better. Emailed twice to ask about status and no decency of even replying. Disappointed. At least the turnaround was quick. However, I had issues with production, they uploaded the wrong version of my paper etc, and it looked like it wasn't even copy edited. Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. Also, reviewers are non-economists, providing some real WTF comments. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided. The other review was somewhat on point in its criticism, though I can'r give him/her the credit as the shortcoming was itself mentioned in the paper. 1 useless report, and second was useful report. Long wait for such an outcome, 3 reports and Editor provides some good suggestions within 10 weeks. Great letter from Nezih G and two good referee reports. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. Hollifield copy-pasted unsubstantiated claims in rejection letter apparently without even having a look on the paper. Otrok rejected within 7 days; considerable comments on the paper, though the three major points are either just wrong or addressed (one of them prominently) in the introduction of the paper. Some nice words from the editor. Very slow, 4 months waiting of the revise and resubmit, it's now two months since I submitted in and no word. Very fast decisions. So they had no idea about basic econometrics. Job Market Paper: Sorting in the Marriage Market: The Role of Inequality and its Impact on Intergenerational Mobility. But overall very very slow process. Contribution not general enough suggests Review of Economics and Statistics. After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected. frustrating, because paper not assigned to the editor who works in my field. Largely fair points. Received two referee reports and a review from the associate editor within two months of initial submission. Will not consider it again. Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. Avoid at all costs.. One good quality report suggesting minor revisions after 1 month. Economics Job Market Rumors Off Topic Technology. Joerg Baten seems to be literally an idiot making me wonder how he got picked. Arizona School Board rejects hiring teachers with Christian values: What is the best country currently to live in? Good Experience. 2 week turnaround. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. He might have read the abstract--clearly doesn't know the literature enough to see the contribution. One recommended reject, the other R&R. Conley is a very nice Editor. But then again it was my fault, I didn't run an experiment! It appears they don't like overly technical papers (it's an interdisciplinary journal so depends on who the editor is at the time - if not an economist, then avoid). Editor was Barro. Same referee takes about half an hour to conclude the math is wrong, yet takes 5 months to submit his report. rejected by editor, saying should submit to other similar journal. Quite useful to provide further extensions, Fast processing and three excellent referees that helped to substantially improved the paper. Desk rejected after one day due to poor fit. But at least it was quick. Resubmitted within the same day. AE did an awesome job. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. Both reports very helpful, AE comments showed that he did not understand the paper. He just wanted me to write a different paper. Just thoroughly unprofessional report. But editor rejects. Not much to complain about. Referee reports were on the shrt side, but competent and polite, unfrtunately I doubt that the comments received will help improving the paper. Rejected on pretty poor grounds by an associate editor. complimentary with some comments but said focus was too narrow, Good feedback from eitor, very quick desk reject. Revision took about 1 week, one of the reviewers requested additional data/info about the methods used. Worst experience ever. The ME provided helpful comments on top of the two reviewers'. The main tasks of the potential candidates would be to carry . 6 months to first response, then a two sentence ref report, one sentence of which was clarified extremely quickly and one that entailed a ton of extra work. Ref. 5 days, paper is too specific for QJE, Helpman suggested another journal. Revision accepted after one day. very good experiencefast and helpful comments from the co-editor and two refereesAverage time between the submission and response is about 1.5 months, well run journal. Katz wrote his usual bs about my fascinating paper. Very good referee reports - largely positive but requiring some modifications, deleting one section. I expected better from this journal. Okay experience overall, 3 weeks for a two sentence desk rejection which suggested submitting to a more specialist journal, Overall good experience. Very clear and good process. The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. The referees' comments were very much on target and thoughtful. Sadly, from the comments of the editor it was clear that she did not read the paper careully either, otherwise she would not have written the coments we got on the rejection letter. After revision, paper accepted in a week. 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. Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. Desk rejected with short but informative comment within 2 days. Do not offer any innovative technique. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Desk rejected after 23 hours. Overall a good experience! Referee one was inexpert in the field, and suggested we cite mostly irrelevant papers published by the handling editor. Excellent referees too, no nitpicking, focused on contribution. KS rejected based on AE's brief report; AE comments somewhat useful but a tad unfair (main criticism applies to many papers publ. From the abstract to the conclusion, we kept arguing like "A is not the main point, we should look at B." Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. All reports were useful and very demanding. Slow as hell. The editor did not even realized this and rejected. Very positive experience. We do not need dumb editors!! Mathematics Jobs Wiki. Bad experience. Helpful comments from referees and relatively fast. One ref in favor, one against. After R&R, the referee required one more round of revision. Editorial board apparently liked the paper, but found it not sufficiently related to population economics. Overall, good experience with IREF. 2 reports + report from AE which is a lot better than referee reports. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. Katz very thoughtful and helpful editor letter. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. With editor for 1.5 month. Suggested Ecological Economics. Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions. Desk reject for paper being too narrow for the audience of the journal. My paper was not complicated and could have been rejected in 2-3 months easily. helpful comments; quick process; good experience. best submission experience. Waited a year for two low quality reports. The status are always the same "under review". The editor talked about 4 ref reports. Overall, it was a smooth process. Rejected after revision for reasons that had nothing to do with the revision and should've been brought up on the first decision. Useless reports. I then spent 2+ months revising, only to be rejected (after another two months), no new reports, but detailed comments from the editor. Proved to be quite true. Took 4 months to report that the article was not a good fit and return without reports. Formulaic letter. Paper rejected based on the editor's phone conversation with the referee. Currently 20 months of waiting after first submission. Had 2 tough but fair r&r rounds with 2 reviewers and 1 with the editor. I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. Editor was US-based and said that she likes the idea though! Overall positive experience. After submitting revisions, 1 month until final decision to accept with no other edits. Slightly disappointing. Environment, Development, and Sustainability. High quality, detailed referee reports, which substantially improved the paper. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. Welcome to the Academic Jobs Wiki. Lengthy, in-depth reports. It's been 10 months and still waiting for a first response of a short paper. One very low quality. editor obviously read the paper (indicated by reference to appendix figure in the letter); nice and helpful comments. The time to response is not long as well. Desk rejected after 3 days. People need filters. Job Market. Desk Reject, No Comment, Horrible Experience- THEY DO NOT REFUND the submission fee. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. In general, efficient journal, 2 months, 2 good reports & 1 trash report, fair outcome and ok process. Weak reports with many assertaions that were simply untrue. Well argued rejection with helpful comments. We agreed with most of the comments. inquiry after 6 month: "several referees invited but still no reports", rejected after 9 month: "sent the paper to four reviewers but only received two reports". Complete waste of time.. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), Reports not very helpful, paper not in journal scope. Insightful and constructive comments. Despite the rejection, a very fair process with constructive comments and a fast response. Great experience - referee reports really helped improve the paper. The whole process lasts less than a year from submission to acceptance. Encouraging words from editor, good experience. Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. Desk reject within a 10 day but editor provided a short 'referee' report mentioning five issues. Desk rejected in 6 hours. One of the best outlet for phd students. 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. Two useful referee reports at the end of the third month. Quick desk rejection from the Editor (about a week). One month for the desk reject. Currently under R&R at a journal with the same ranking. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. Expensive but quick. The editor read the paper carefully to make the decision. Process a bit slow. 1 report was nonsensical and tipped it to rejection, two very weak reports, editor obviously did not read the paper, overall very bad experience. First response in less than 3 months. Standard experience with the JHR. Fast decision after resubmit. No additional comment from the editor. Probably the fastest journal I've had experience with. One somewhat elaborated report. Although I withdrew my article, editor sent me a rejection letter in a very rude manner. one positive, one flat reject review, the editor decided to reject. report and a couple of pretty good ones. Emailed every six months never to any response. Comments are constructive. From the comments it could have been an R&R, at least the referee and editor comments were helpful and will help to improve the paper, Though it is rejcted, I want to express my thankness to the refreee, who provdes a exremly high quality report. 1 insanely negative liquid poop all over my paper, most of it provably wrong. Tough but fair referee reports. Good experience. I inquired a few times, and they responded promptly and politely, but sitting on a manuscript for a year is obviously unacceptable. Invites for 2nd round zoom interviews sent today. Two reports. quick process but the editor provided no information and was impolite. Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud. editor read the paper and decided to give it an r&r. One referee gave very constructive comments, but referenced three papers by same person (I'm guess that's who referee was). It lists positions at PhD-granting departments (including stat and applied math), and at departments that are research-oriented . The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. 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. My first submission in AE and it is the best experience ever.

Recent Drug Bust In Frederick, Md, Flo Milli Baker High School, Another Word For Write Up At Work, Musc Chief Facilities Officer, Fire In Sterling Heights Today, Articles E