Rejected a letter with one referee report but overall experience was good: about 6 weeks, comments sensible will try to implement. Overall, I was disappointed not by the outcome per se, which is part of the game, but by the poor judgment of the referee. Desk reject after 2 months! Very quick response. Very poor quality referee report after waiting for more than 7 months. Decent reports highlighting different issues, mostly sympathetic, but tough. Mostly unhelpful report filled with numerous unnecessary resentful and bitter. Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. Constructive comments and Nice experimence! EconJobRumors.com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is a website for academic economists. 6 weeks to get 3 referee reports. The review process yielded good referee reports in round 1. Form letter from the editor. I have no clue who the referee wanted to impress, maybe the editor? Still got rejected. Decent reports, no complain. Smooth process. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. Was pleased with the process, besides the rejection. Two reports negative and one positive, editor chooses to reject. Waste of money. Also a very kind editorial letter. What is left to say? About 3 weeks turnaround. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. Withdrew article from consideration after 18 months of wait. Efficient. Would try again. Bad Experience. Editor overturned referee's decisions with poor justification. Two referee reports, one engaged and constructive, the other written in incredibly poor English that took issue with some phrases I used. Both read, understood and gave a few comments. Editor cites two but only sends one. one nasty and rudely written report with inaccuracies as well, one cited lack of fit. Do not submit to this journal. Referee comments were pretty minor. The other was much more careful. May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. They kept the application fee. Fast and serious journal. 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. One referee was OK with almost no comments. Reports were very positive, it took us 12 weeks to resubmit. Process a bit slow. 1 useless report, and second was useful report. In hindsight, submitted the paper too prematurely. 7 days for desk reject. Generic rejection letter from the editor arguing lack of fit. Desk reject after 30 hours, helpful comments from the editor. Overall smooth process. I wrote the editor but nothing changed. Quick rejection. Editor recommended to submit to other journals. desk rejected in 3 days. Clearly the referee was someone not in the field of the paper (Asset Pricing). Unfair decision. quick. Think one more time before sending here. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Extremely efficient. I resubmitted in January, and the paper was accepted with minor revisions in March. The referee asked for revision but Barnett or an AE rejected after I emailed them after 6 months. He only mentioned that I failed to mention a lot of papers who were all by the same person. Very good experience. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. At least the process was fast. Reports with no use, in one case even mentioning the need of something that was already done in the paper. Desk reject within a few days. Will probably not be using this journal again. Two useful reports and one garbage report thrashing the paper. Desk rejected in 25 minutes. 6 months was a lot to wait for one good report though Good feedback. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy, Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript. Accepted 4 days after resub. The report is rubbish and incorrect. It was crazy to wait that long for a dek rejectionwas not happy at alland there was not any comments or any reviews at allbasically waited for nothing for 5 months.. 3 weeks for a desk reject. Pretty efficient turnaround. The paper was with the journal for five months and we got a rejection with only one referee report with 5 bullet points (two of which were about typos). 2 straightforward reports with fair criticism. Good experience. Two sloppy reports, one useful. Very positive experience. 3 weeks for a desk rejectand they keep the $100. Bad report, condescending. suggest some field journals. Editor suggested that paper was better suited for JDE (LOL). Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. They pocketed the submission fee, though! However, I regret to say that it is a bit tangential to the main focus of our journal, and we are not able to offer publication". From here on, AEJs are the way to go outside top 5. The other referee was also good and liked the paper. Low quality comments from Frank Sloan. The editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions. Editor was respectful and not full of himself. Encouraging words from editor, good experience. Editor obviously read the paper and had great comments. 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. Desk rejection with no comments in 3 weeks. The AE finally conceded that I was right and the referee was wrong - but decided to reject the paper anyway! Comments are constructive. low-quality referee reports. One week to accept. It's going to be most accurate for economics, political science, public policy & other professional schools. My paper was on Covid and one ref was clearly not an economist, suggesting medical/health indicators, references and logic; impossible to satify I think with economics arguments. Economics Job Market Rumors. One very helpful referee report, 2 not so helpful. Editor admitted haven't read the paper. It was completely incoherent. Overall, very happy with the process. A shame the editor sided with the second. Despite perceptions they do desk reject. Too narrow-minded editor. Great experience. You won't get in unless you are in the 'cabal'. The referee reports were serious and offered some good suggestions, although one of the referees appeared not to understand the theoretical model used in the paper. It details the following: Preparing to go on the job market. Too us more than a month to revise and still had doubts. Brief comment from the editor. Editor rejected after R&R without providing any referee report (note: journal name has now changed to International Journal of Health Economics and Management, International Journal of Industrial Organization. Very fast. We resubmitted to AEPP and the paper received minor revisions after the second R&R. 3 reports, very quick. Unbased rejection after more than six months with mediocre reports and editorial justification. One positive report, one mixed and one negative. The editor decided to reject, I am not in the club. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. A second round of minor revision was requested. Comments weren't helpful, but at least they didn't waste my time. The editor said that referee is an expert in this field. One good referee report, one referee who had no idea. That was also a very fast and good experience, though not the outcome I had hoped. Will avoid in the future. Two referee reports. Cool editor. Also one referee was clueless and did not read the paper. Editor suggested alternative outlets. Good process. 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. Larry suggested to send it to field journal. 4 months for a desk rejection based on what it appears to be a very superficial reading of the abstract. Minor changes, though. One referee report was fine. Ref reports were okay. In 1974, the Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) began printing a periodical, Job Openings for Economists (JOE) (Coles etal. Bad experience. One very good report. Do not send your papers to this journal. Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. One excellent and detailed (5pages) referee report which helped a lot in revising the paper to a much higher level. They pretend to look like an international journal however thay only consider studies related to Japan. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. The Editor sugested the JIE. 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). For the fee would have been nice if the Editor had written a paragraph about why they rejected. Good reports. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. Desk reject for paper being too narrow for the audience of the journal. It's the kind of disappointment that makes you stop caring about research. Costas Meghir responses all submissions. Editor Chandra rejected with one ref report. This is expected as I am not part of the editor's inner circle. Will never submit again. Average time between rounds of R&R (months), EJMR | Job Market | Candidates | Conferences | Journals | Night Mode | Privacy | Contact. Bigger joke than the article I sent them. Weird decision as the paper was not far from being accepted at a better journal. the editor was helpful and nice though. 7 days from first submission to minor revision. Two reports (half-page each) citing minor issues. The reports were very useful and the referees seemed to have given the paper a very careful reading. The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. Reject because apparently would not fit in their journal. This is the letter I sent to the editor of JME: Laughable report (where do they find these clueless idiots?). If you don't have that - expect to be desk rejected. After one round of revision, two of the three reviewers accepted the paper and one requested at best minor revision. Transfer from another Elsevier journal - additional round of R&R but easily satisfied and made the paper better. Comments from editor suggested issues were "fixable" but then basically suggested changing the ID strategy, which basically amounts to writing a whole new paper. Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. Referees asked for useless extensions and took more than six months in each round. Contact: hyejin -dot- park -at . Copied and pasted the comments, some of which were not even relevant for the current version of the the paper. The paper would be a good fit. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. Referee rejected but with very exhaustive and interesting comments, only one report, but it was fair and can help me to improve the paper, Reports are thoughtful and useful for revisions, it took them 11 months to reject with one referee report of about half a page. Good experience, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. Katz rejected in two hours with comments that seemed to be written for some other paper. Never submit to this journal again. Editor misread the title and barely read the abstract. Would send here again. Unfair letter from Emi N. Great letters from four referees and three of them are very positive! Tough reports that required a lot of work but ultimately improved the paper significantly. Thanks for quick decision. Mark Ramseyer. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. Excellent and detailed report, fair decision. Process was too long given that only minor changes were required on R&R. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. Very mixed report quality. Very efficient process. He had nothing but praise for it and offered good suggestions. One report was an absolute travesty and surely had to be disregarded. One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. Efficient. Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. Emailed the editor at JPE for a brief explanation of why the paper was desk rejected so that I could improve it. Editor read the paper and gave helpful feedback. The editor informed that she is a cross section econometrician and she did not understand our panel data paper. it.?I? fair comment. not worth the time and effort. Expected better from an AEJ. In the second round, the comments are from only one referee, they are easy so revise. Signaling. Will not submit again. The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. Good experience. is ?so ?poor? Rejected by editor. Remarkable coincidence. Referee reports were very good, constructive and tough. Referee #1 wrote 1 sentence saying to submit it to AER. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. A bit slow for a 2000 words paper. Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). Very slow. One reviewer is helpful, another needs to retake econometrics course. They have officially adopted the policy of not giving reasons for desk rejections given the 75% desk rejection rate. The AEA provides a guide to the job market process created by John Cawley. Empirical results didn't match their political priors so recommended rejection. Two helpful reports. Reason - paper was too specialized. Fast and fair. I don't know what to add. My experience with other journals when there is only 1 referee, the editor always provides a report detailing their reasons for accepting or rejecting the paper. Harold Cole was excellent as editor. Two months for desk reject -- no comments given. Very helpful reports. The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. that ?no? Really unfortunate waste of time. Finally very well handled by the editor. Fair and quick process. Took 7 months to get one referee report. 2nd very short and useless, referee probably spent 10 mins on it. $100 fee refunded. Both reports very helpful, AE comments showed that he did not understand the paper. Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. Note that the shorter the time span considered, the more likely the ranking is going to be spurious. rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report. The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it. Horrible reports. Pleasant experience overall. Terrible single line report from editor (after 16 months of waiting). Took a long time for first response which suggested feasible changes and asked for a revised submission. Submission fee refund. This would be fine if desk-reject was motivated by "not a good fit" or such. Will never submit unless the editor is changed to an economist, Referees did not put much efforts. Good reports overall. Editor didn't even read the paper and rejected it. Not for the faint-hearted. Will submit again. Posted: (4 days ago) WebNov 2011 - Present10 years 4 months. International Review of Financial Analysis. Recommended rejection. Referee reports were modestly helpful, though there was very little overlap between what the referees commented on. The paper was accepted after I incorporated all suggestions in R&R. Some reasons given. Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. Editor also gave comments. Would submit again. Finance Job Rumors (489,486) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,772) Micro Job Rumors (15,235) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,012) China Job Market (103,527) Industry Rumors (40,348) One week desk rejection with form letter. Economics Job Market Rumors . Job Market. All good, minor additions were suggested. This decision is not in any sense a negative comment on the quality of the paper. EM suggested transfer to a different journal (which desk rejected after 2 hours). Quick (10 days), but useless. The paper was not sent to the referee but instead the editor said it was reviewed by the editorial board. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. Overall, good experience with IREF. Almost one year later from submission, have no answer about my paper. Referee reports were lenthy and very useful. Burak Uras (Tilburg AP), Caitlin Hegarty (Michigan), Diana Sverdlin Lisker (MIT), Suzanna Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Garima Sharma (MIT), Ruozi Song (USC), Heitor Sandes Pellegrina (NYU Abu Dhabi), Juanma Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Katherine Stapleton (WB/Oxford), Dario Tortarolo (Berkeley), Jonah Rexer (Wharton), Anna Vitali (UCL), Livia Alfonsi (Berkeley), Binta Zahra Diop (Oxford), Shafaat Yar Khan (WB/Rochester), Althoff (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Vaidya (Northwestern), Chan (Stanford), Bodere (NYU), Pernoud (Stanford), Kang (Stanford GSB), Minni (LSE), Otero (Berkeley), Bodere (NYU), Vergara (Berkeley), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Carry (CREST), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Ospital (UCLA), Lanzani (MIT), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Kennedy (Berkeley), Souchier (Stanford). Reports are not very detailed, but generally comments are fair. rejected after 2 rounds of revisions. The referee did not understand the basic assumption of the model. Not helpful in any way. One excellent report, one mediocre report. Welcome to the EconTrack Job Market Information Board, a service hosted by the AEA. I dont care whether you want to increase citations and impact factor fo your journal. The other report also helped in improving the paper. I got two rounds of R&R. Rather slow desk reject. will definitely try it again next time. Very respectless! 1 very helpful report. Says model's too complex then suggests an addition which would have tripled the state space. Job Market. Suggested a top field journal! Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud. The reviews were short and gave some good feedback. Good report. It seems to me that this was an easy way for the new Editor to reject the paper! The other `meh'. He gave thoughtful comments about how to better target elsewhere. Terrible experience - slow and unjustified decision. The Editor does appologize on the long delay saying one referee did not provide the report. Avoid if possible. WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). Wasted months of work. Slow process (but exactly as advertised) and fair judgment. One recommended reject, the other R&R. 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. The top 20% of women are chasing the top 1% of men. be viewed as too specific. A disappointment. Editor accepted the article within one week. your paper, after some updating to reflect the recent complementary literature, would be more appropriate for a more specialized journal. submission was in 2017. Not only is it accepted, but it also becomes a much better paper now. Desk reject in 7 days. Great comments from editors and referees. 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). Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. quick process but the editor provided no information and was impolite. Serious referee report, but without any helpful particular suggestion. Not a good referee match given papers subject matter and therefore not very useful comments. Note: previous desk rejected paper there was published in a much better journal. AER:Insights - Larry Samuelson, Very polite, slightly more than standard rejection letter, saying - not a good fit, although enjoyable. Is "have u told ur mother" am automated script, or truly deranged person? Very efficient and fast. Paper was internally valid-(ish) but not a big enough contribution. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. Desk rejected in two weeks. Editor wrote half a page and was polite. Handled by the new co-editor. No comments, but very fast. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. Fair referee reports, ref. very thorough referee report, comments were mostly related to theoretical motivation, paper was submitted without much change to JFE and eventually accepted there. only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. Giles is a great editor. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. Conveyed no sense at all that anyone even looked at the paper. That's not true. R&R, then reject. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. Very negative experience. 11 months for a rejection. 2nd round 2 months. Some nice words from the editor. Super fast handling by Pro. Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Economics of Food Consumption and Distribution. Desk rejected after more than 6 months without any review or comments. Reviewers' concerns are reasonable but they didn't provide helpful suggestions. 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). Surprisingly, she had one-page long useful comments, which helped improve the paper. Recommended. But the editor (Kunst) decided to "follow the referee's advice to reject your submission", even though there was no indication of such a recommendation in the RR. All of them are much speedier and you will actually get helpful comments that will improve your paper. Recommend field journals, Useful letter from the editor Dirk Krueger (aprox. Terrible referees. The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. In May 2016 the editor promised a decision within a days. One paragraph that dismissed four years of work. Emailed journal to withdraw submission after 14 months. Editor provided useful feedback and a subsequent version of the manuscript was sent out for peer review. Still not a fan of this journal. Katz voted to reject. Very good experience. Invites for 2nd round zoom interviews sent today. But very quick process after contacting editorial office. Bad experience. reviewer knew an aspect of the literature and appeared to promote his own unpublished paper under review at the same journal. Excellent experience. The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. Highly recommended. 2 mildly useful reports. So-so report. Referees rejected. Quick response within three days. Appreciate quick reject. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". Long process. Bad experience. Good process. Clear editor had read the paper, helpful comments. Chat (0) Conferences. Editor acknowledge that it was a bad draw. 2-pages report, few suggestions. 1 Referee provided useful comments that improved the paper. Very slow and the reason for rejection was not good enough. Editor was a bit harsh. There was a second round of ref. Second one didn't understand the paper and said it was already written. One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. "Thank you for your paper. Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic. 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. Very professionalthe referee reports were fine but rather tough given the quality of the journal, 3 rounds, all comments addressed, rejected because 1 reviewer did not read the last version. They never refunded my fee either. Shleifer was the editor. Waiting was attrociious and final rejection not properly justified since reviewers went AWOL. 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. Mark Watson was the editor. Two ref reports in 8 days. Barro says not sufficiently general interest, and advises to try a field journal instead. Sick comments and rejection for no reasons. Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data. Rejected in 10 days with no comments. 1 R was for R&R, another for weak R&R, another for reject. Focus of decision appeared to be on the institutional context of the paper rather than considering the economics. Six months to respond. Very constructive suggestions. Best experience in a long time. Job Market. Very efficient indeed!!!!!!! 2 constructive reports that improve the paper after 2 months.