some useful comments, but clear that the referee didn't spend a lot of time on the paper, nor take much effort to follow bits of it that weren't conventional. happy with outcome. The editor and AEs should be immediately replaced. Ok, experience if it wouldnt be for the 11 months. Two reports are suggestive but the other one was a low-quality. Very clear that two of the three referees hadn't read the paper. Both reviews helpful - one very extensive. Very good journal, with reactive editorial assistant (Sabah Cavalo), and very good and constructive comments. He further suggested an exercise that was already illustrated in 2 figures, 1 table and described in the text! Stay away from JAE. The second round of review only took 3 weeks. Resulted in much better paper. 1 paragraph of superficial non-descriptive comments from each ref, One week to desk reject with no comment at all. Editor is a insecure joke. So if your topic is not within this field, the desk rejection is much more likely. One extremely useful and one useless report. If you don't have that - expect to be desk rejected. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. One good referee report. One year since submission, no replies to my queries shitty journal. Two very constructive reports. Desk rejected as outside the scope of the journal. Do yourself a favor: if you have a journal that fits the topic of this journal, just submit it to JPopEcon, LE or the new Journal of Economics of Ageing. Ref2 was not. A complete discrage. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. Annoyed because all of the concerns were addressed and yet she could not be bothered to re-read the paper. A serious fraud: Fake JF and RFS conditional acceptances, "Leftover women" problem hits US dating market, New "Family Ruptures" AER / NBER is rip-off of obscure paper, Schiraldi (LSE) and Seiler (Stanford) false coauthors of AER publication, 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). useless report from "expert" regurgitating my explicitly stated caveats, B.E. The current reality of the economics job market is this. Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. The editor is not related to my field, but also decided not to get an expert's opinion. Found out it was rejected only by contacting them. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. Each report was one small paragraph long. Very fast decisions. (As we've seen, courtesy of Raj Chetty and Diamond/Mirrlees, sometimes they split your paper and accept.). Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. Deemed too narrow for the journal. Still, I lost 7 months overall. Good quality reports for a low-ranked journal, though. Pathetic Three reports, one good report the other two average. Near-perfect experience. Great letter from Nezih G and two good referee reports. 6 months for useless reports. Fair. Took 5 months in total, 2 reports, a paragraph each. Very quick process. Nice words from the editor. Very nice editor. Very impressed with comments received by the co-editor (Mark Armstrong), which were more substantive than the reviewers. Although the other referee was positive, editor rejected it. Very unprofessional. Two very thin referee reports. Suggested a more specialized journal. 4.5 months to get the 1st-round comments, 2.5 months for 2nd round. No reply to my e-mail. Rejection based on fit. Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. According to the editor, the paper has some merit, but is too specialized for EL. Hard to believe. 7 months for 1 decent report and 1 poor report. Manuscript was withdrawn - editor had assigned referees within 3 months of submission but then these were apparently not forthcoming. Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject. Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. Both referees suggested papers to be cited in the literature review, which seem like their own papers. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. Strange desk reject by editor, claiming methods weren't relevant to policy. Took some time due to lots of things to revise, but all the requests were fair. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. Excellent review process. Desk reject in a week. Desk reject within a 10 day but editor provided a short 'referee' report mentioning five issues. See Alice Wu's paper for details. One referee gave very constructive comments, but referenced three papers by same person (I'm guess that's who referee was). With hindsight, I got much more out of submitting this paper to TE. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. Good comments, helped improve the paper. Very late and vague one page referee report, rejection based on perceived bad fit with journal. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. Desk rejected in two weeks. Nothing happened. Thorough review. Overall experience is good. The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. one of the reports was literaly 3 sentences. One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. Not sure why we didn't get desk rejected. 2 rounds after which referee recommended acceptance, but editor (Chakravorty) kept the paper for 7(!) Some valid points, but overall Kahn's criticism was thin. Good process. 1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. I dont care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. Comments from Larry very helpful. Super standard rejection letter from Olivier Coibion, no advice whatsoever Two months to a desk reject, with zero information from the editor's response. Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. Paper was internally valid-(ish) but not a big enough contribution. Less than 3 weeks for the first responses (major R&R) then accepted in less than a week. Used reports from AER. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. It took 3 weeks to get a desk reject letter. Recently Announced. 4 months for a desk rejection, frustratingly slow. Very complementary and helpful reviews. Editor cites two but only sends one. A bit slow, but kindly acknowledged by the editor. My paper was in "submitted" status for almost 5 months when made a query. Job Market Paper: Sorting in the Marriage Market: The Role of Inequality and its Impact on Intergenerational Mobility. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. 3 pages of helpful comments by the editor, suggested very good field journals instead, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society). They just pocketed the submission fee. Editor contributed with some helpful comments as well. Standard comments, paper's topic just not good enough. Working on my R&R now. Ref reports quite useful. Great experience. The journal is higher than B. One very good and one very weak report. Very fast, and really high-quality referee reports, plus the AE's feedback. He does not read the paper, or he has no expertise. Have they done first-round interviews? Submitted a taxation paper that was outside of their comfort zone. Slow. Thorough referee reports with substantive comments. Editor did not catch these oversights. Both found the topic and general question interesting and wanted us to think more carefully which question we ask and how we can answer it. 1 extremely helpful report and 2 so so ones. AEA-Committee on the Job Market; Cawley, John, A Guide and Advice for Economists on the U. S. Junior Academic Job Market, 2018-19 edition Johannes Pfiefer maintains a catalog of job market tip pages and resources Resources for applying to government positions - L&S Career Site for Govt, Policy, International Affairs, writing a . One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. Update to previous pending post. Rather slow desk reject. Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. Mess with the submission, as they were changing editors. The other was much more careful. Despite the rejection, referees raised valid points that we can adress to improve our paper and provided a way forward. Due to a "typographical error" in sending me an email, I had to wait an extra month (and after I emailed asking for a status update) to learn of the rejection - wasting time I could have spent submitting it to another journal. Rejected. interesting and polite reports. I must say second reviewer report was 1 and a half line and in my view it is the most unscientific report I have ever seen. Desk rejected. Very nice experience! Two straightforward R&R recommendations from referees. The paper was accepted after one round of submission. A Doctorate level degree in Economics or related fields, or expect to receive it in 2023 with strong background in empirical analysis and policy-focused research. Thank goodness that there are more journals in health economics started. 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. It is a disgrace to the profession reflects poorly on the journal. Referee report transformed the paper significantly. Overall good experience. Great comments from the referees and editor. We do not need dumb editors!! quick and clear communication with editor. 3 polite reports say it is interesting but too simple for aer. He just wanted me to write a different paper. Dual submission to a conference, the submission fee is quite high. It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. There are some great papers in the journal; I would think it would get a higher impact factor. Editor gave a two sentence summary the paper, mentioned two additional recent articles from their journal that might be useful, and suggested an alternative journal. No refund. The comments are of bad quality and show poor knowledge of economics. One ref in favor, one against. (This would have been easy to see from reading the intro before sending this to reviewers why not desk-reject instead of wasting author and reviewer time?). Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. A couple nice comments from Shleifer after two days. No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. Fast process, but very poor reviewer report. Two reports. 1 very useful report and associate editor comments. The rejection was fair but the referee report uninformative and boilerplate. Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. A disappointment. Smooth process. Good process (and none of the coauthors are from 02139). 2 days to get a desk rejection. Very useful reports, also doing some editing. . One is a R&R type, and the other referee said that he was not interested in the topic, nothing about the details of the paper. Would submit again. All other comments were mentioned and addressed in the paper. Suggest field journal. The least the editor could have done is to assign another editor. Depressing experience. The model is not presented in a clear and intelligible way. No comments from Katz except go to field journal. Sent it to EL on Christmas Eve, got the desk reject from Gomez right after Christmas on 26th for not enough contributions. If the editor tought the paper did not fit the scope of the journal, he should have rejected it at the very beginning of the process, without engaging in a peer-review. After careful consideration, the JAPE editorial team considers the paper is largely a statistics exercise. Overall, not bad experience. It lists positions at PhD-granting departments (including stat and applied math), and at departments that are research-oriented . The referee seems like a first year PhD student who struggled with the notion of left tails. Multiple inquiries with a response: "once the reviews are completed, the editor will make a decision". Reviews were not particularly helpful. Unfortunately the paper is rejected but I hope the reports help you improve the paper for another journal. Pretty fast, 1 high quailty report. 2 very good reports and one poor report. basic IV! Awful experience. In the meantime they lied to me saying that it was out for review and that they were awaiting referee scores. Helpful reports and suggestions by the editor. They will help to improve the paper. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. Terrible referee did not understand LATE and simply could not be satisfied. Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. Editor wrote a few short comments. Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half. Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions.
Thomasville Fabric Swivel Chair Blue,
Dmv Renewal Test For Seniors 2021 California,
Articles E