Good experience. 7 months for two very low quality reports. Rejected on pretty poor grounds by an associate editor. Excellent comments from reviewers. 1 month + 10 days for desk rejection. Submission fee refund. Editor provided some friendly comments. The second one is more critical and seems to be angry by the fact that I'm not citing his work. Good process. Desk rejected in a month. Poor comments, one paragraph each asking for minor changes but rejected. They said they could not find reviewers. Job Market. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. Horrible experience. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. High quality reports and useful comments from the editor. Very pleasant experience. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Paper not anywhere close to editor's field of interest. 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. Claudia Sahm - Wikipedia Great letter from Nezih G and two good referee reports. Minor changes, though. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Waste of submission fee. Good experience overall, took more than 1 year to get one referee report. Coming off of a failed R&R at a higher ranked journal. Desk rejected within 10 days because the topic was not fit to the journal (it may have been a reasonable response given the topic). AE also helpful. WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. Desk rejected by Nigel Rice after almost 2 months, looking at the reason for rejecting the paper I had the feeling the editor did not read the paper. Unprofessional letters, one full of typo and pushed to a no-way-working direction; the other simply was wrong on his/her main comment. Three rounds: one major + two minor (the last one being really minor, like copy-editing and missing references minor). Seems as though they did not like the content and were looking for an excuse to reject. Don't know why Elsevier is silence about this behavior from Batten. Editor did not add any comments. Two reports are suggestive but the other one was a low-quality. Unbelievably slow given their 30-day referee guideline. 1 Referee provided useful comments that improved the paper. Two reports of middling quality. After 4 months it remained Under review and these comments I get from the Reviewer: "You have a good idea. Could have desk rejected and saved us all the trouble. Two rounds of review. Desk rejected after 40 days. The paper is accepted in another journal now. Until the 1970s, junior economics hiring was largely by word of mouth. 1st round 2 1/2 months. AVOID it. Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines). 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. Editor guidance also helpful. Waste of time and money. He gave thoughtful comments about how to better target elsewhere. Constructive referee report; said needed more robustness checks, but difficult in word limit. A good journal, Quick and fair outcome with a nice response from the editor, Good experience with every step completed in a timely fashion. Very poor experience. Co-editor rejects because contribution is not big enough to warrant publication. Fit justification. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. Useful comments from knowledgeable reviewers. Fairly helpful referee report. No referee reports, just got notified I was accepted. Useless referee reports--one was just a single short paragraph. Constructive feedback from AE. EJM - Econ Job Market Editor is a little slow. The bar is high for Exp Econ. Fast and fair. The editors are public health monkeys. The referee had a chip on their shoulder and the editor stepped in. Taiwan was born in Wuhan. Disappointed with the result, but the experience was okay. 2 week desk reject. Despite the rejection, referees raised valid points that we can adress to improve our paper and provided a way forward. Pleasant experience. A very similar paper came out a month after our paper got rejected, new paper's authors are closely tied to this journal. Can't complain with the decision and the entire process. The editor (Mallick) gave us some additional advice and was ok with the result. Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade, Fair and efficient process. Helpful editor. None of the criticism was fatal and most was stylistic. Two months for desk reject -- no comments given. took 5 months. Very efficiently run journal. Excellent process. Worst experience so far in my career. One seems to be written by a first-year bachelor student. Fair referee reports, ref. Reason: topic/results too narrow with respect to broad audience. Great experience, one of the referees truly improved the paper substantially. Two reports that are quite detailed. A stronger editor could have handled the submission more efficiently also pointing out the weakness of the 2nd report. Proved to be quite true. editorial team do not respond to email. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. Would submit again. Transfer from another Elsevier journal. Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. Understanding the job market - American Economic Association Referee comments were useful, editor clearly did not understand judging from his remarks, which made it frustrating. Good enough experience and fair. Horrible. Old fashined. That is, the handling of the submission took almost 4 months, I think this is unacceptable: what is the point to have quick referee reports if the editorial team takes such a long time? Shleifer was the editor. Desk reject in two days for not being general enough, $132 fee not refunded. very good and fair comments in a short time, Two good reports plus some comments from editor. Only one report. One guy who had no clue, the other who had good insight into our paper. Referee reports were of high quality. editing team is real class act. Desk rejected in the 24 hour window. Very bad reports from non economists. One referee kept claiming one thing was wrong. Many thanks to the editor for most constructive comments. Good experience! The editor was not helpful at all. Do not submit there. The closures follow the consequences of the 2020 BLM-Antifa riots that . Got two negative referee reports, where one in very useful, and the other is moderately so. I urged the editor to give me reports 3 months after the initial submission. Response time was decent. The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. No comments from the unknown handling editor. Will never submit here. The paper got rejected anyways. Would submit again. Relatively Quick Process. Submitted in 2012. 3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal. The editor rejected the manuscript without any useful comments. Three short reports. Referee comments were pretty minor. Not sure whether to classify this as a desk or referee reject. and then took another seven months. Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. Very efficient journal, 3 very helpful reports from a coeditor and 2 referees. One report after 18 months. Two careful reports with good feedback. Terrible to treat junior people this way. Journal of International Money and Finance. 19 Jul 2023. If you don't like my paper then desk reject the first time, and don't ask me to resubmit! Editor Chandra took four months to desk reject a straightforward empirical paper. Great comments from the referees and editor. Long time to first response, given 3 months for a lengthy (single) report, but resubmitted and was accepted in like 3 hours. Econ Job Market Rumors | Now Hiring - CareHealthJobs One positive one negative. Nice words from the editor. KS rejected based on AE's brief report; AE comments somewhat useful but a tad unfair (main criticism applies to many papers publ. Horioka the editor. We did. The other without serious suggestions. Will never submit there again. Disappointing turnaround for this journal. one very weird report, asking to cite an unknown WP, from a PhD student One R&R with minor rev, one inscrutable report, and one unfair report with incorrect claims. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). Just didn't seem to believe paper, but without any really good reason. To view archived listings in this job market cycle that are now inactive, check this box View listings from the previous (August 1, 2022 - January 31, 2023) JOE cycle. I wouldn't try this again. Referee report was reasonable and improved the paper. Avoid avoid avoid this outlet if you are looking for a serious journal that will follow a fair referee process. Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. A bit of wait but ok for econ standards. 14 days. The reason given was something along the lines of well we can't read everything. terrible experience, after submission my paper was not sent out to referees for more than 6 months. The referee also pretended that I did not develop a two-sided hypothesis (comment like "why didn't the author think of this? 4 months for a letter w/o referee report. Editor Michele Boldrin did a good job handling the paper. Editor agreed to R&R and suggested major changes but then didn't like the resulting paper. About 3 weeks turnaround. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Unacceptable waiting time. Rejected based on 1 helpful referee report. AFter 3 months of being "under review", I get this email: I regret to say that we are not able to offer publication to your paper. no submission fee but fast response and fair referee report. A complete discrage. Form letter. Suggested Ecological Economics. Placement Officers: Pete Klenow 650-725-2620 klenow@stanford.edu. And once that was done, he wanted us to rewrite the article. Said they would refund the submission fee, which is nice. It took the referees / editor 5 months to look at my revised script to then just accept it without any further comments. Fast response from the Editor. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. ), Vienna University of Economics and Business, Ceccarelli (Zurich/Maastricht), Pitkjrvi (Aalto), Assistant Professor in Labor, Migration, and Racial Capitalism, Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario), Gallant (Toronto), Sullivan (Yale), Cui (UPenn), Choi (Wisconsin-Madison), Kahou (UBC), Hentall-MacCuish (UCL), Babalievsky (minnesota), Moszkowski (Harvard), Hong (Wisconsin-Madison), Pan (UT Austin), McCrary (UPenn), Gutierrez (University of Chicago), Kwon (Cornell), Zillessen (Oxford), Ba (UPenn), Assistant, Advanced Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor of Economics, E0 -- General F3 -- International Finance F4 -- Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Fin. Very short and no relevant comments. 4.5 weeks to desk reject. The co-editor gave very specific, though difficult requests for the revision. Fast response within one week. Entire process takes 1 month. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Great experience - referee and editor very helpful. One good report, one completely useless with only superficial, general remarks. one week to accepted with minor changes. Apparently JHE considers itself general interest. useless comments from editor. Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. Reports submitted within one month. Waited about a month for the first decision, just a few days for the (very minor) revisions. Rejected for not have a theoretical contribution. [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors is only lightly moderated and preserves posters' anonymity. The referee report is very good and even show a positive view to my paper. Terrible screening process at this journal. My worst experience ever. 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). Finance Job Rumors (489,418) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,722) Micro Job Rumors (15,231) Macro Job Rumors (9,801) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,526) Industry Rumors (40,345) 2 years and counting, for a small paper. No response to requests. Quite annoyed at this journal - AE provided verbatim the referee rejection from another submission journal from three months prior. One very good referee report out of three. 1 good Referee and good Editor. Editors keep delaying despite returned reports, seems to be a pattern with this journal. Gave a quick explanation and said they did a thorough read of the paper. Interviewing at the ASSA meetings. I sent off the revision less than 24 hours after the R&R. Almost 4 weeks for desk rejection. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. apologize.? Editor appeared to have at least glanced at the paper.