Rejected after 1st R&R. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. Available November 2022 for positions in Summer/Fall 2023. Quick acceptance after revision. Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. One of the best run journals in macro. Pretty good experience. Took a while, but great experience overall. Editor was changed, asked for electronic resubmission and paper got rejected. reports. One referee openly mentioned s/he doesnt like the method used in the paper. Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. Very fast, and really high-quality referee reports, plus the AE's feedback. English. The referee is clearly not up to the task. ", Two reports - one thorough and one probably by a grad student, 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. Quick desk reject with a few comments from the editor. Two referee reviews. Desk rejection by QJE does not convey the quality of the paper. Fast editors. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. Flores, Jairo. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. The editor rejected it though. One ref suggested I send it to JPE before trying places like EJ or ReStat. Two very thin referee reports. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. Form letter. One of the best outlet for phd students. Scam. Second decision took 2.5 months. Good experience, even though a reject. Referee clearly didn't read the paper carefully. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Desk reject after 2 months! Will never submit to this journal again. Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. Aarhus University, Department of Economics and Business Economics, School of Business and Social Sciences: Eric Hillebrand http://econ.au.dk/job-market-candidates . Tough reports that required a lot of work but ultimately improved the paper significantly. desk rejection in 2 weeks. Editor sat for two months on completed referee report and rejected without adding any comments. Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING. Recently Announced. Very constructive and useful for revisions. They did not send an offer last year either. Taburet (LSE), Leombroni (Stanford), Puglisi (Northwestern), Wangner (TSE), Qiu (Pennsylvania), Morazzoni (UPF), Charles (USC), Hurtado (Chicago Booth), Nord (EUI), van der Beck (Lausanne), Monteiro (Northwestern), Gutierrez (Chicago), Senior Economist (Forecasting and Policy Modelling). Editor desk rejected after a couple of weeks due to lack of fit. Said the contribution was too small, which I accept. Desk rejected in less than one month. Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). Handling editor still rejects for unclear reasons; very frustrating, but at least fairly timely. Happy with the whole process. Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper, no longer a serious all purpose journal imho; "desk reject" after 6 mos on the basis of style in the abstract, Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded, One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end, Terrible experience. Enough said. I didn't know that JHR is a general interest journal! Very helpful feedback that made this a better paper. Editor noted that paper of an associate editor was not cited but did not mention the name of the paper. Extremely bad experience with this journal. This was after a 6 month wait and emails to the editor to follow up. Referees didn't get the point of the paper, my fault. His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting Decision based on 1 one-paragraph review that didn't refer to anything specific in the paper. "Growing by the Masses: Revisiting the Link between Firm Size and Market . desk rejection within 1 week. 1 Month from Submission to a very positive R&R. Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. About 3 weeks turnaround. Editor offers insightful suggestions as well. Very short to the point referee report. Not sure I'd call it a full referee report, however, and only receiving one report is strange. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. Overall good experience. After 7 months of waiting. Perhaps we can call JABO an experimental journal now. Disappointing. Initial review was slow but there was an editor change that may have contributed to this. Complete waste of time and money. 2 fairly helpful reports. Both referees clearly read the paper and discussed potential concerns of the analysis. Rejected at ECMA, told a great fit at ReSTAT, desk rejected with generic letter after two days (and I'm in the club), 2.5 months for a desk reject with no feedback (labor paper). Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that! Secondary: Applied Macroeconomics and International Economics. One referee posted two of his own papers including url in the report, one of which was just accepted in the same journal before sending reports. as stated ("within 24 hours") we got an editorial reject claiming the lack of interest for a broad audience. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. Mentioned that they do not consider theoretical papers. I guess I had the luck of being assigned to two business school types with absolutely no idea of the literature that my model belonged to. Good. the editor was helpful and nice though. Cannot say the paper improved significantly, but it did not get worse either. Reasonable motivations for desk rejection provided, Fast desk rejection, poor targeting on my part, desk reject but with useful feedback from AE. He does not read the paper, or he has no expertise. Great turnaround I guess? Argued lack of fit, dispite publishing a paper on the subject a few months ago, one very short useless report in seven months, 5 months + 125USD for a referee rejection with a report of about 21 lines.SHAME. Health economics, Applied . Very easy suggested an appropriate transfer and levied the submission fees, with editor providing quite helpful comments. But at least fast. Less than two weeks from submission to editorial decision. Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. Just a one-paragraph report saying that the results are not "novel". One very good referee report, based on which the paper is improved significantly. helpful comments; quick process; good experience. The other was low quality and made factually incorrect statements that seemed to influence the associate editor's assessment of the manuscript. Fair decision. Good experience overall. Poor comments, one paragraph each asking for minor changes but rejected. Contribution not general enough suggests Review of Economics and Statistics. Very professional editors. Unbelievable! The other report was *atrocious*. Desk rejected by Sarte in 3 days without comments. Rigor of the paper increased greatly because of the refereeing process. Suggested a top field journal! Not recommended. Good experience. Desk rejected in 10 days because the editor wasn't a fan of the data. Mark Watson was the editor. Highly recommended. Reasonable referee report. Apart from long waiting time (editor part of the old guard at JPE), positive experience. Will not submit again. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. Article was rejected but the comments were generally helpful and thoughtful. The paper was published in 2016, Decent referee reports that indeed improve the paper. Long and slow desk reject. Kathryn spier, the editor, was even more clueless and unable to see that we were right and s(he) was wrong. He/she also asked unrelated information such as why the market offer two similar contracts, which is not the scope of the study. Editor was kind and offered some useful remarks. Really unfortunate waste of time. After that, the R&R only took 10 days and we also tackled a minor comment from the editor. Useless referee reports--one was just a single short paragraph. Fantastic journal. The editor didn't bother to read through the lines of my responses to his previous reports to see how incompetent the referee is, or to look at the big picture and account also for the reports of other referees who wrote much more competent reports and had recommended acceptance several rounds earlier. I then spent 2+ months revising, only to be rejected (after another two months), no new reports, but detailed comments from the editor. Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School, Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO), Majewska (TSE), Seibel (Zurich), Deng (UMD), Lesellier (TSE), Vanhapelto (TSE), Suzuki (PSU), Leroutier (SSE), Lorentzen (BI Oslo), Guigue (CREST), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Bou Sleiman (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Moreno-Maldonado (CUNEF), Khalifa (AMSE), Kondziella (IIES), Merilinen (ITAM); see https://www.helsinkigse.fi/events/category:job-talk, Assistant/Associate/Full Professor - Environmental Economics, Song (USC), Kwon (Cornell), Sileo (Georgetown), Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Hyuk-soo Kwon (Cornell University), Sean McCrary (University of Pennsylvania), Gretchen Sileo (Georgetown), Stephanie Weber (Yale University), Sadhika Bagga (UT Austin), Ricardo Marto (University of Pennsylvania), Martin Souchier (Stanford University). 1 very good referee report, 1 OK, 1 pretty bad (revealing that the referee was clearly a non-economist). Recommended field journals. Accepted as it is. Empty report. 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. Quick-ish, 10 weeks. Took almost 3 months for the first reports. Referees were obviously a bad choice for this topic. I want my money back ! Very smooth process. Editorial office very helpful. Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. 2 weeks for 2 high quality ref reports. Good comments from the editor. Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. Great experience. The comments from the editor are also disappointing: his main suggestion is to send our 7,500 words paper to economics letters. The saving grace is that it was fast. All good, minor additions were suggested. Ended up being a better paper. At least the turnaround was quick. Comments just so-so. Very weak report. Liran Einav 650-723-3704 leinav@stanford.edu. But then, it took 20 weeks until we got the acceptance. Useful comments from editor; one really great ref. Encouraging and polite comments from editor. Mostly generic comments. Came back to my office at 12:05. Very good experience; desk reject with highly valuable and fair comments by the co-editor within 10 days. 1 on the fence. AE rejected without commenting on referee report, At least a quick report with one good comment that can help to improve the paper, but with the other points highlighted by the referee were discussed in the paper. The editor said that referee is an expert in this field. Paper not anywhere close to editor's field of interest. One good referee report, one referee who had no idea. Keep asking to submit to other conferences/journals RCFS/RAPS. Placement Officer: Professor Stefania Garetto, garettos@bu.edu, (617) 358-5887. Report was fair and helpful and editor's letter was kind. The editor clearly had a look at least at the introduction and gave encouraging comments. Do not send a paper to BE JM, Very bad experience.