econ job market rumors wiki

Desk rejected in 6 hours. This decision is not in any sense a negative comment on the quality of the paper. 9 months for 1 2-page referee report. Job Market. Overall I feel paper rejected because of third negative review. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. 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). One of the papers has over 3000 citations. Drill down into the main traffic drivers in each channel below. Found out it was rejected only by contacting them. Giles is a great editor. Very fast and fair process, despite the negative outcome. Referees reasons to reject the paper are not convincing enough. Mentioned that they do not consider theoretical papers. Fair enough. The contributions are very thoroughly detailed in the introduction, ie, the referee had to read around 3 pages and took him/her 6 months to do so. "The empirical econometric novelty of the paper is not substantial enough ", Desk rejection within five days / Poor allocation of coordinating editor (microeconometrician for a time series paper), Quick desk rejection after manuscript ID was assigned. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. Quick rejection (Canova, 5 days), professional, very acceptable decision. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Waste of submission fee. One associate editor recommended rejection and no other comments/suggestions, but one referee provided very useful comments and s/he seems to be positive about the paper(I post one row which has the wrong info on journal name, should be JPE rather than QJE). Encouraging words from editor, good experience. Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. The referee did not understand the basic assumption of the model. Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint). Decent referee report, acceptance 3 days after submitting revision. Interesting but not a good fit. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. Overall, great experience. Never deal with stupid journal anymore. Costas Meghir responses all submissions. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. Two useful reports (one with detailed but helpful suggestions), good editor. Very, very disappointed! Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. Great experience overall, Editor decided not to wait for the late referee not to slow down the process. But first response took a whole year. None of the criticism was fatal and most was stylistic. Editor had different opinion. Poor reports. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. One week to accept. Referee one was inexpert in the field, and suggested we cite mostly irrelevant papers published by the handling editor. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience. I spent less time and less effort revising 30 pages papers in other similar ranked journals than in EL, Excellent process and editor provided useful comments and guidance, Very pleasant experience very quick and the report professional. Referees didn't get the point of the paper, my fault. paper took over a month to get desk rejected because of problems with elsevier system. City of PhoenixPhoenix - USA, Senior Analyst - Economics Department An Associate Editor clearly read the paper. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. Summary understated contribution of the paper making it looking boring. Some people are simply too narrow in the scope of their research to be editors of a journal which claims to be of "general interest". R&R only one round; after submitting the revised version, only waited for six days until final acceptance. Quality of editing going down. The co-editor gave very specific, though difficult requests for the revision. Very fast process. Rejection after 3 days. 5 days, paper is too specific for QJE, Helpman suggested another journal. Clear editor had read the paper, helpful comments. Editor not helpful at all. 1 good Referee and good Editor. Constructive feedback from AE. Horrible! I expected something more serious from a journal with such a high submission fee. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. First decision in 2 months. Less than insightful comments by an editor clearly hastily read the paper. Both reports were very shorts (one was just a few lines). The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. Two referees were lukewarm but couldn't really point out too much that was wrong. within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Desk rejected thoughtelessly with curious comment paper read more like a book, 8 month desk reject with no reports--JPE is dead to me, desk rejected in a bit over a week, not clear who handled the paper. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. Generic letter. Single report. Fast. Showed as "awaiting editor assignment" for three months, then a desk reject. Got two negative referee reports, where one in very useful, and the other is moderately so. Suggested Ecological Economics. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). No BS, great experience! Turnaround times are reasonable though. It has been about 16 months now. Referee was sharp, thoughtful, and thorough. 1 good report and 2 of low quality probably written by grad students. Very fast process. The secondary market "Scramble". The reviewer and the editor did not understand the paper. There are some great papers in the journal; I would think it would get a higher impact factor. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. Lost more than 6 months for nothing. 1 Month and 10 days for first decision is too long. Second ref put thought into it but was of a heterodox stripe that I'm not. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. The shitty one referred to multiple papers in very low ranked journals authored by the same set of authors. This would be fine if desk-reject was motivated by "not a good fit" or such. This particular group controlling urban economics now will not let any differing view go through AER and JUE. Went from reject/resubmit to revise resubmit 1, revise resubmit 2, finally accepted. Fantastic experience. One very good and helpful report. Despite perceptions they do desk reject. Sounded like the referees couldn't let go off other papers' methodologies. Referee reports were of high quality. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. Hard to believe. Didn't make the paper better at all. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. Focus of decision appeared to be on the institutional context of the paper rather than considering the economics. Apply for Market Access Asia region manager job with HPE in Taipei, Taipei City, 11568. One is very productive while the other is suck. the other report is empty (rejection). Fast and very polite response. Comments by R1 were helpful, but 100+ days for 1 report is too long. First response was very good (and positive), still there was a long waiting afterwards. Good feedback from AE too. Decent reports highlighting different issues, mostly sympathetic, but tough. Two reviews - one very positive, and one that was clearly from someone outside of the field that was not familiar with the methods or the literature. Graduate Advisors. Not of broad interest. One report very useful, and the other two not that much. Two lines ref report. referee is very fast. The referee reports were fairly good. Journal of Economics and Finance Education. Clearly the paper was not good enough for the JIE. Desk rejection with no comments in 3 weeks. After revision was done the AE decided to reject without sending to referees! The second round of review only took 3 weeks. rejected by editor, saying should submit to other similar journal. Very efficient process. No comments whatsoever, in an un-signed email with 2 generic sentences, Desk rejected after one week with kind words from co-editor and recommended field journal, Poor justification, pure taste by Debraj Ray. [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors is only lightly moderated and preserves posters' anonymity. Seemed like a very long time to only receive one referee report. I thought that I deserved more respect. Strong and professional editors! Waited about a month for the first decision, just a few days for the (very minor) revisions. Bad report, condescending. 2/2 referee reports were positive and suggested R&R because the contribution was significant enough. Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California (USA) two referees with constructive comments, one referee rather negative and no substantial comment. Extremely helpful comments that significantly improved the paper in the end. We did. 3 constructive and useful reports. Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. Weak editor. Waited a year for two low quality reports. Insane process and utterly inexperienced referee. The reason for rejection was that my paper was too specific for their readers. Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. Seemed like he carefully considered the paper. For three months the editor has not assigned referees! Grad student who manages inbox for ed took bad review at face value. The new editor (Leeat Yariv) did a great job: She indeed read the paper and gave constructive comments. They clearly help the author to improve their paper instead of rejecting it without trying to extract the best. Very efficient. Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. Two referee reports; one high quality, one very low quality. Pretty clear that whoever desk rejected didn't even read (or couldn't understand) the paper. Instead, they should've looked at B." 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). fair and efficient process. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. I don't think he/she took a wee bit of pain to find out the context. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. Worst experience with a journal so far. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. Very good editor recommending a field journal. candidates received letter saying search now closed- did anyone get the position? Constructive and helpful comments from the co-editor. Have emailed for status to no avail. (Fair?) This? Too slow. Very efficient. Fair points by referees. My paper on the "The Impact of MTV's 16 and Pregnant on Teen Childbearing" was quickly accepted due to its relevance and awesome nature. A second round of minor revision was requested. Funny thing is Editor endorsed reviewer's response. He clearly outlined the major flaws and decided to desk-reject it.

Layoff Meeting Subject Line, Kid Motorz Police Motorcycle How To Charge, Simone De Alba, Articles E