One report was very positive, but the second one looked like it was written in ten minutes citing four papers of his own. However, it was relatively fast at least. Quick response. Extremely fast and thoughtful. Desk rejected after 40 days. Editor like the paper but their hands were tied, I guess. Paper went multiple rounds over 2 years. Referee had positive comments and suggested revise and resubmit, but editor rejected it. Fasstest acceptation ever after R&R: 1 day! Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small). Horrible experience! Editor slept on the paper's submission history and the reviewer's dishonesty. 8 days for a desk rejection. Very respectless! 4 months for first report, 5 months for second, only to be rejected by referee. National Bureau of Economic Research. Special issue editor started to referee himself. Letter gives no mention of reasons for rejection and even unclear on paper's final status. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. One fairly high-quality report, one not-so good. **** this journal. A stronger editor could have handled the submission more efficiently also pointing out the weakness of the 2nd report. Very helpful referee reports. I am just not part of the club. This journal has published MANY papers using these methods and policy makers regularly fund these methods. Excellent editorial service from Bruno Biais. Desk rejected with short but informative comment within 2 days. One very good referee report, based on which the paper is improved significantly. the? Super fast process than I had expected. Kathryn spier, the editor, was even more clueless and unable to see that we were right and s(he) was wrong. Desk rejection within two weeks. Excellent desk reject by Larry S. Recommended a field journal by the editor. Good reports that were specific and helpful. Bit disappointing given the high fee. Arbitrary decision without sending it to refs by incompetent editor. Very inefficient handling of the work. He suggested a general interest journal. Got accepted after 2nd round. Recommended to try other health journals. 2 weeks to desk reject. Two ref reports in 8 days. It seems they rushed to reject it. A five pages fantasy report written by a phd-student who did not read the paper. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. Two careful reports with good feedback. They like the paper but the contribution not enough for Econometrica. Other, did not read the paper carefully yet rejected. One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. Rejected with a 1-page AE report, after almost 3 months. Good helpful report asking for few corrections. Fair editor. Suggest field journal. Very good comments even if he slightly misunderstood the contribution. Very quick response. Very disappointing experience. Never submit to this journal again. Round 2 also yielded good referee reports too. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. Heard nothing and received no replies to my emails. Useful ref reports and helpful comments from co-editor. Referee process could be streamlined (take too long), but overall a good experience. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. It's going to be most accurate for economics, political science, public policy & other professional schools. Some nice words from the editor. Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. However we had make all of the referee's suggestions and the outcome was not positive. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. 2 good reports, clearly improved the paper. and then took another seven months. Rejected for arbitrary reasons. Pretty clear that whoever desk rejected didn't even read (or couldn't understand) the paper. 3 weeks to desk reject. Very Detailed construtive reports. Very kind letter from the editor. Overall, very good experience. Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us. Editor decided to reject it. if we go by his saying, then all finance articles are purely pointless. Although QJE may be one of the oldest professional journal of economics published in the English language, it is also stale. 1 report half page long. The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. Chat (0) Conferences. Stay away! It took the editor 3 months to write two paragraphs and reject. Probably the fastest journal I've had experience with. reports. One very good report, the other OK. It ended up being published in a higher ranked journal. 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. got the impression that the reviewer did not read the paper and decided to dispute the review, the dispute process took slightly more than 1 month and the new reviewer sided with the old reviewer. The report had a few good notes but none that really seemed to disqualify the paper from getting an R&R. $ 200 is high for an immediat desk rejection, editor was helpful in replying to inquiry regarding reason for desk rejection. Thanks Amy! Fair and quick process. In-depth argumentation why there is no sufficient progress compared to common wisdom. Prof. Sushanta Mallick handles the paper. Oh well. One absolutely incompetent referee. Insightful and constructive comments. Total turn around time was about 40 days. 2 strong reports with valid empirical critiques, 1 less so. One quite short referee report. While the goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. Disappointing. Within a week with no justification. one referee suggested revision, one rejection, editor followed the rejection; good reports, suggestions improved the paper, Two revisions but rejected by editor, fast and fair comments, One accept with min comments, one said ok but many points/revisions, one reject, editor said too large a revision without guarantee for accept, 1 report recommended to publish, 1 pointed out minor points. However, he suggested that I submit my paper to a theory journal. Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. Good experience. desk rejected. Really unprofessional. Sounded like the referees couldn't let go off other papers' methodologies. Harold Cole was excellent as editor. Seemed not to like the idea of the paper without actually reading it. Very clear that two of the three referees hadn't read the paper. One very helpful referee report, 2 not so helpful. Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. Appreciate quick reject. Slow but good experience overall. Editor (Partridge) was very helpful and was de facto a 4th referee. Almost 4 weeks for desk rejection. One report was very constructive and helped improve the qualitiy of the paper. One positive review, one negative, editor took the side of the negative. I waited fora long time only to be rejected with a response NOT A GOOD FIT. Mark Ramseyer. The reviewer was excellent, made the paper much better with his/her comments. A black bitch barks at East Europe. Avoid avoid avoid this outlet if you are looking for a serious journal that will follow a fair referee process. Two days between handing in the revision and acceptance. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee. A good referee report and very efficient editor. Very quick process. Ref rejected in 3 weeks. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. Water Research Manager (Project Manager) One referee had clearly read the paper. Despite the rejection, a very fair process with constructive comments and a fast response. Editor read the paper and deskrejected in less than a week. editing team is real class act. Costas Meghir responses all submissions. Editor desk rejected stating that paper (which was on the program of Top 3 conferences etc.) Horrible. Showed as "awaiting editor assignment" for three months, then a desk reject. Some useful comments from his friend. Very quick and extremely professional. Update to previous pending post. Both have suggestions (one extensive, one less so). So, I "told mother", and she was like "What is Edge-mer? 2 months for a generic desk rejection with no comment whatsoever.. but of course I am not in the club. So not sure why the editor would say this is "fixable", unless he is trying to say it sucks in a nice way. This, of course, is useless. Taiwan was born in Wuhan. Also a very kind editorial letter. Brief comment from the editor. Although our paper is rejected by the reviewer, I would be very happy to read the referee report. One report was an absolute travesty and surely had to be disregarded. Would send here again. One positive report, one negative. not a fair process. Economics Job Market Threads. Crappy journal with crappy editor. The editor's comments show that he is totally uninformed about the literature. Boo! San Jose, CA. However, it seems the process is one editor first decide whether to send to referee or not but a second editor makes the final decision (William Kerr)? NEVER submit there if you are pre-tenured. Desk rejected after 3 days from Shleifer. I wouldn't try this again. Very fast. First referee constructive and positive. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. Completely unacceptable. Very slow in responding inquiries. 2 weeks for desk rejection. Fast editorial process. Would submit here again. 1 paragraph of superficial non-descriptive comments from each ref, One week to desk reject with no comment at all. Valuable referee's reports. [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors is only lightly moderated and preserves posters' anonymity. Quick with two decent reports. Desk Rejected after 2 days. Horioka the editor. Referee makes a factually inaccurate claim about previous research, and misinterprets interaction terms. Just that paper did not meet the bar. The worst experience so far. Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE. Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. No complains. We resubmitted to AEPP and the paper received minor revisions after the second R&R. The referee reports were crap (minor points without really saying anything about the research question, the methodology and the results of the paper).
Paul Kendrick Studio Email Address,
Countyline 25 Ton Log Splitter Ytl 016 919 Parts,
City Of Milwaukee Death Notices,
What Type Of Demon Is Azazel,
What To Do If You Inhale Spray Sunscreen,
Articles E
