econ job market rumors wiki

First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. 3 reports, very quick. Harold Cole was excellent as editor. Nice comments and feedback from Associate Editor. Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. Average Quality R-Reports, one missed one has good comments. Very nice experience! Desk reject in 4 hours. Was actually scared based off of runors I heard on this site. Controversial journal. Good enough experience and fair. Reasonable. Just that paper did not meet the bar. but i think it is an important one that should be considered a bonafide econ journal. In a typical year, every MIT Economics PhD graduate finds a job. "Although interesting and competently executed, your study does not contain a sufficient theoretical or empirical innovation that would meet the very high standards of the EER." Quick desk rejection. I wrote the editor but nothing changed. EER to toilet, the editors are clueless. No indication that the paper was read. Sick comments and rejection for no reasons. The referee report was more appropriate for R&R. AWFUL editorial work. referee and AE comments, OK at best. Most efficient experience with journals ever! Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. Fast desk reject, no substantial comments. Editor agreed = reject. Very fast. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. it.?I? AE followed majority reports without additional insights. Reason cited: weak paper. The AE was gentle and actually read my paper. Weird editor pushing for a change in the results. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. Editor provided quick and fair comments why the paper is not suitable for the journal. Do you really understand American history? I'm amazed. Overall an excellent experience. Very efficient editorial process by Ken West. The editor said that enjoyed the paper very much but the contributon is not sufficiently broad for a general interest journal as JHR and fits better into a labour journal. The only referee who respond wrote some nonsense without reading the paper. Editor was a bit harsh. Poor, self serving. Still took 3 months. 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. 7 months for 2 reviews (and one reviewer was already familiar with paper). 2 decent reports. re?write ?the ?paper ?with ?the ?help ?of ?some one? Two reports of middling quality. Generally not 5-star experience but worth submitting there if your paper is relevant. Great experience in general! Desk-rejected in 3 days. Stay away! Do not submit there. The most disgusting journal I have ever encountered. Strongly recommend submitting there. Reports are not great. Very slow, but fair process overall. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. Editor's letter mentioned a 2-1 split in favor of rejection, so she rejected. Desk rejection in one week. oh they're good! Editor read and carefully considered the paper. Pretty useless referee reports. Weird decision as the paper was not far from being accepted at a better journal. Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. This is expected as I am not part of the editor's inner circle. Accepted without revisions. Good communication with the editor, very helpful referee report. Referees didn't read the article properly! Quickly accepted after the revisions were completed. Pleasant experience overall. The editor provided one. He/she also asked for the summary statistics of my high frequency data while I already provided the estimates of bid-ask spread, price impact, order flow autocorrelation of each month for the entire contracts which shows his lack of knowledge about market microstructure. might be a once in a career event. Comments are constructive. Not good enough for general interest. Referee didn't think the contribution is significant enough, so straight reject. 1 reviewer R&R, two reject. Two very good reports, one probably written by the editor. At least it was fast. Two very thin referee reports. 1 day desk rejection by editor. I only regret not withdrawing this. Failed to notify me of rejection. Overall a good experience that will help the paper! 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Fair and constructive comments. It is run by "Kirk", [2] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. Suggest field journal. Rejected for not significant enough contribution. 48 hour DR, no particular comments from Shleifer except interesting paper, suggest AEJ:applied. One brief report. Less than 3 weeks for the first responses (major R&R) then accepted in less than a week. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. After more data were collected, the editor said "a referee suggested empirical work was not serious enough." What can i say more? Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. Desk rejected with 1 sentence after 2 months. Not being up to claimed "high-speed dissemination" standards. Economics, Tenured/Tenure-track Advertiser: Various departments, New York University Shanghai Field(s) of specialization: Econometrics - Microeconomics 1 week. Not enough contribution. Revision accepted for publication in one week. The reason was that the, Andrew Samwick rejected within 2 days, Topic is too speacialized for EL. Good reports - detailed and constructive. Bad experience. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. Katz wrote his usual bs about my fascinating paper. I wonder how an editor can accept such low-quality output from the referees. I suspect either grad students or people outside of the field. We may have been aiming too high. Seems to be a fair process, 13 months for editor to desk reject because the paper has no empirical section, One good report, very constructive, the other one rejecting the paper. A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. Our paper is rejected after receiving one referee report. One report very solid and useful, another (two-paragraph one) looks confusing. Total 6 months. The second one is more critical and seems to be angry by the fact that I'm not citing his work. Very helpful feedback that made this a better paper. Environment, Development, and Sustainability. Good referee report and very efficient editor. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. The paper is accepted in another journal now. If you are in a hurry or need one to fill you CV, then choose it.. editor very helpful. very well-run journal, Very thoughtful referee reports with clear suggestions for improvement, as well as recommendations from the co-editor for better suited journals, editor read the paper and rejected with some useful comments. Never again. Editor rejected. $89. I didn't know that JHR is a general interest journal! Other referee hadn't read the paper at all. Too slow. Desk rejected the next day. Editor is bonkers, he said article was outside scope of journal.when it was clearly regiona/urban economics article. Bazinga! Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. An Associate Editor clearly read the paper. Of course we don't like the reports, or editor's comments, but there is some helpful stuff. Transfer from another Elsevier journal. Editor mentioned additional points and suggested a field journal as an alternative. First reviewer excellent. I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. Rejected by an Associate Editor, who actually read the paper, got the main idea clearly, and wrote a 2 full-page report with reasoning why this is not for JET and what journal outlets might be considered. Nice experience. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. Reject and resubmit. One obviously senior who doesn't care, openly says didn't read some parts. At least they were fast. Very quick response from Larry Katz. Very good experience. After revision, paper accepted in a week. He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. Editor (Taylor) gave additional advice. Two referee reports very useful, pointing to the same concerns, one of them quite positive and friendly, providing numerous pathways to pursue in the future. Very poor referee reports. Result are standard and no enough novelty! I don't know what to add. Maybe small sample made it untouchable? recommend to send to some other theory journals but those theory journals have said I should send to this journal. Quick (10 days), but useless. Proved to be quite true. Bigger joke than the article I sent them. Really bad experience (Midrigan was the editor). Poor referee reports. not the fastest experience, but high quality comments from referees and the editor who liked the paper. Recommend. Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud. Less than a month for two strong referee reports on a non-experimental paper: useful suggestions and some parts of the paper were obviously not clear enough, although no intractable issues so rejection was disappointing. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. He clearly did not read the paper and wrote a pretty much standard rejection that had nothing to do with the paper. Very inefficient handling of the work. Desk reject in 1 week. 4 months for first report, 5 months for second, only to be rejected by referee. Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one). 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. Desk rejected in two weeks. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. My fault for not discussing that up front. Waste of time and money. Comments were not very helpful. Even better input by editor. The secondary market "Scramble". two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. Desk rejected in 10 days. Terrible referee did not understand LATE and simply could not be satisfied. Paper got desk rejected. Referee comments were pretty minor. One useful report out of three. one of the requests advanced was indeed something that was dealt with in a specific section of the paper, making me think that the referee quicly skimmed through the paper without proper attention). Georgetown University - McDonough School of Business, Associate Professor or Assistant Professor, International Political Economy, Georgetown University McDonough School of Business, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, International Finance/Macro - Macroeconomics; Monetary, Chaudary (Chicago Booth); Chan (Stanford); Minni (LSE); Vats (Chicago Booth), Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Giacomo Lanzani (MIT), Jacob Moscona (MIT), Agathe Pernoud (Stanford), Rahul Singh (MIT), Daniela Vidart (UCSD/UConn), Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, Assistant Professor of Economics and Public Policy, Christensen (UIUC AP) Reimers (Northeastern AP) Kwon (Cornell) Newberry (UGA AP) Lee (Princeton) Serna (Wisconsin) He (Yale) Alba (Toronto) Yang (Duke) Weber (Yale) Craig (Yale) Rogers (UCSD), International Economics/Industrial Organization, Yajie Wang (University of Rochester), Hyunji Song (Texas A&M University), Yumeng Gu (University of California-Davis), Yes (1st round complete. First report was helpful, second one was literally 2 lines. Referees did not show good knowledge of the subject. 2 fairly helpful reports. The reviews were short and gave some good feedback. Got most thorough, informed, and useful referee reports in 5 years. The editor informed us that the contribution of the paper was not high enough for this journal although the topic has been examined in the past by other papers in this Journal. Although paper is accepted, i would hardly deal with them in the future. Rejected for not general interest, brief comments by editor and a "finance scholar". Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. One reviewer asking for minor revisions, the other clearly reject the paper. Editor suggested top field, decided not to send to referrees due to "narrowness of topic." Expected a lot better from this journal. The other referee recommended revision. Very fast process. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. After submitting revisions, 1 month until final decision to accept with no other edits. Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". New editor apologized for the delay and handled the rejection quickly. Empty report. Very helpful comment. Very good experience, competent referees and quick feedback after the resubmission. Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. Constructive comments and Nice experimence! Would submit again. Editor admitted haven't read the paper. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. The comments from the editor are also disappointing: his main suggestion is to send our 7,500 words paper to economics letters. Three rounds: one major + two minor (the last one being really minor, like copy-editing and missing references minor). Decent referee reports. Reviewers seem to be very well acquainted with my research area (health). This journal is a scam. Lorentzen (BI Norway), Lieber (Chicago), Lyngse (Copenhagen), Ststad (PSE), Osun (Maryland), Majewska (Toulouse), Nord (EUI), Sverud (Copenhagen), Zillessen (Oxford), Carry (CREST), Airaudo (Carlos III), See https://www.economics.ku.dk/Calendar/seminars/, Shunsuke Tsuda (Brown), Catherine van der List (UBC), Victor Pouliquen (Oxford), Evgeny Yakovlev (NES), Andreas Ziegler (Amsterdam), Valerio Pieroni (UAB), Thomas Brzustowski (LSE), Assistant/Associate/Full Professor-Ag and Applied Economics, University of Georgia (Terry College of Business), Thereze (Princeton); Lee (Princeton); Geddes (Northwestern); Vitali (UCL); Crews (Chicago); Cai (Northwestern); Kang (Stanford GSB); Bodere (NYU), Bodere (NYU), Cai (Northwestern), Thereze (Princeton), AP of Economics at Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan Ross School of Business, Serna (Wisconsin), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Qiu (Penn), Geddes (Northwestern), Altmann (Oxford), Kleinman (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Kahou (UBC) Kim (Penn) Holz (Northwestern) Holz (Chicago Harris) Wang (Rochester) Arbour (Toronto) Lee (Chicago Harris) Wasser (Cornell) Robinson (UCSB), Development, Political Econ, Applied Micro, Lecturer (Assistant Professor), Senior Lecturer and/or Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Yes- some girl accepted offer then took another job, Aina (Zurich), Bertazzini (Oxford), pires (berkeley), oliveira (berkeley), schief (brown), uccioli (MIT), sartre (brown), Sartre (Brown), Bertazzini (Oxford), Uccioli (MIT), Skoda (Zurich), De Vera (CEMFI), Sui (Rochester), Aina (Zurich), Ghersengorin (PSE), Hancart (UCL), de Carvalho (UBC), Gavan (UPF), Milson (Oxford), Schneider (UZH), Vattuone (Warwick), Herstad (Chicago), von Carnap (IIES), Lorentzen (BI), Altmann (Oxford); See https://tinyurl.com/mryuahhm, Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford), Sung (Columbia), Lanteri (Duke), Hui (LSE), Nord (EUI), Cruces (UC3M), Williams (Yale), Marto (Penn), Trouvain (Michigan), Sturm (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton); Lanzani (MIT); Cai (Northwestern);Guerreiro (Northwestern); Nord (EUI); Ederer (TSE); Starck (Brown); Bellue (Mannheim); Diop (Oxford); Banchio (Stanford GSB); Pernoud (Stanford); Saxena (Harvard); Souchier (Stanford); Vitali (UCL); Sharma; Serna (Wisconsin), Wheeler (UC Berkeley), Bagga (UT Austin), Gutierrez (Chicago), Szerman (Princeton), Crews (Chicago), Nord (EUI), Peng (Penn), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), University of Rochester (Simon Business School), Arkhangelsky (CEMFI AP), Bai (Michigan AP), Pouliot (Chicago Harris AP), Chang (Yale), Cai (Northwestern), https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/index.php/index/research/seminars?dateRange=past&seriesId=0, Sarah Robinson (UC Santa Barbara), Justin Wiltshire (UC Berkeley), Katherine Rittenhouse (UC San Diego), Christopher Mills (Princeton), Eduardo Medina Cortina (UIUC), Arielle Bernhardt (Harvard), Jenya Kahn-Lang (Berkeley), Katherine Riitenhouse (UCSD), Gina Li (Stanford), Stephanie Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Flynn (MIT), Wang (Stanford), Lu (Stanford), Leombroni (Stanford), Seth (LBS), Singla (LBS), Ptashkina (UPF) Sileo (Georgetown) Gutirrez (Chicago) Chang (Yale) Shen (UCLA) Kohlhepp (UCLA) Cai (Northwestern) Morazzoni (UPF) Wong (Columbia) Carry (CREST) Nimier-David (CREST) Chen (Stanford GSB) Bodr (NYU) Tintelnot (Chicago AP) Beaman (Northwestern AP) Lamadon (Chicago AP) Kang (CMU AP), Risk and Insurance at Wisconsin School of Business, Rao (UCSD), Wiseman (Berkeley ARE), Rexer (Wharton), Giaccobasso (UCLA), Yucheng Yang (Princeton), Sofonias Korsaye (SFI), Matteo Leombroni (Stanford), Yes, 2/05/2023 according to EconTrack (who? The other reviewer I suspect of being a graduate student with not so good comments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. Had wait for the first response awfully long. Chiara Paz and Alice Wang. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. One of the referee reports was sloppy, showing inaccurate reading. Getting a reference to AEJ Applied was worth it. Desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Rather pleasant experience. One positive one negative. Nice editor message. Editor rejected because paper topic (public finance) is not what tey are currently looking for. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. Bad Experience. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Editor followed the referees suggestion, though with his own view on the paper. Editor slept on the paper's submission history and the reviewer's dishonesty. Desk rejected after a week with no comments. It took more than 2 months for desk reject. Flores, Jairo. Isn't it so obvious?" Form letter. Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. Referee clearly didn't read the paper carefully. The third was R&R, and was more substantive. 20 months to acceptance since first submission. Two weeks to desk reject. Great experience. Submitted more than 2 months, still shown the status as "under ADM", 5 months first RR, 5 months second RR, 2 weeks final acceptance. he clearly read the paper. 1 month for R&R, 1 week for acceptance after revision submitted. The reviewer didn't even bother to read after page 8. submission was in 2017. Quick to online first. Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. Two useful referee reports at the end of the third month. One good report and the other mediocre. Very good experience. I had a paper that was to be revised and the review was very positive. Desk rejected by Katz within 24 hours. One great referee, one ok. Super fast process. Sent it to EL on Christmas Eve, got the desk reject from Gomez right after Christmas on 26th for not enough contributions. $ 200 is high for an immediat desk rejection, editor was helpful in replying to inquiry regarding reason for desk rejection. Fast editors. Very quick and professional editing. Professional editor. paper took over a month to get desk rejected because of problems with elsevier system. A grad student could do better! Coming off of a failed R&R at a higher ranked journal. Not interested in the topic, acceptable decision. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. Very useful referee reports. Courteous notes from editor&co-editors when first response was delayed. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). Bradshaw AdvisoryLondon/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds - UK. A very good experience. Waited over 9 month for a half-page low quality report. Total waste of time. The editor decided to reject, I am not in the club. Katz voted to reject. Not of broad interest. Totally automated review process; one referee carps even with demonstrably invalid reason and you have no right even to contact the editor. Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. A form-letter rejection from Katz. The reports were very useful and the referees seemed to have given the paper a very careful reading. When do I give up? Would submit again. The referee asked for revision but Barnett or an AE rejected after I emailed them after 6 months. Reports were not very helpful. I am happy with the outcome. Big lie. His reports were completely crap. Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors is only lightly moderated and preserves posters' anonymity. The contribution of the paper is not enough for EL! Really quick response and decent referee report. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. He sends you an email that he carefully read the paper and then you follow up a day after asking him about a clarification and his response was that he did not remember. 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. paper proposed theory that is quite a substantial departure, so i appreciate the editor's willing to take it on. One good referree report, one positive but unhelpful, one negative and entirely useless. No refund. Otherwise fine. Going through 15 months of the reviewing process. The law scholar did not like technical thing but I just used. Dest rejected in three days. Job Market. the website was hackedthe report was good, and the associate editor is very nice. Very quick and very fair. Better to avoid. Second round took 30 minutes, from submission to acceptance. This journal has published MANY papers using these methods and policy makers regularly fund these methods. The referee was clearly trying to protect his own paper on a related topic; half of the bullet points referred to that paper. Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. Will submit again. Very tough journal with very extensive comments from 3 refs. Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. The initial resposen took too long (almost 4 moth to be sent our to referees). Odd journal but overall pleased with the result if not every part of the process. Will never submit to this journal again. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee. way too long for a "standard" rejection. Very good experience; desk reject with highly valuable and fair comments by the co-editor within 10 days. Apply for Market Access Asia region manager job with HPE in Taipei, Taipei City, 11568. Quality of editing going down. Extensive delay for referee reports apparently due to unresponsive referee. Only had to face one reviewer in the second round. Desk rejected in less than one month. The negative one says there is no methodology novelty. At least they are quick! One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. Pretty well run, can't complain. Initial review was slow but there was an editor change that may have contributed to this. Will not consider again. Accepted without need for further revisions. One positive (R&R) and other two had valid concerns I could have clarified better ex-ante. First two reports were "not general interest enough" and didn't have much to say substantively as a result (1-2 pages). The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. Both read, understood and gave a few comments. One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor. Very efficient process. of? Bad experience, waste of money and time. Good report and conditionally accepted with minor revisions. Depressing experience. RR with major changes, then RR with minor changes, then accepted after 1 week. Fast response time. Crawford rejects although refs and editor recommends revision. Two solid referee reports. relatively high quality referee reports, huge amount of work needed to format the paper according to the editorial guidelines as they receive little typesetting support from publisher. The paper was a very good fit though. quick decision by the editor. The referees made good points. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. He wanted to give the paper a careful read and this was not possible immediately. fair decision, Super quick desk rejection because paper uses archive data but isn't really econ hist, 6 months plus to first decision - then substantial time between R&R rounds, with pednatic comments which mostly wanted to remove the economics from the paper to the appendix. Very professional editors. Between two referee reports and two conference discussions, I have some things to consider for future submission. One very good report, the other average-to-good. Simply put, the reviewer does not believe in my results (simulations from calibrated macroeconomic model). The editor (Sushanta Mallick) rejected it by 'just by looking at the descriptive statistics' (the original words from the decision letter). Pretty helpful reports. Good reasons for rejection; comments improved paper for next submission. long waiting time. Response time was decent. Not very impressed. 3 detailed reports, and a summary from Hendren explaining the rejection. Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. Nedless to say I got no referee report even after asking. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. Standard experience with the JHR. Also, did not bother to understand the theoretical contribution. Fast Resposne in 10 week. Helpful comments from referees and relatively fast. Reviewers comments were quite helpful. Note that the shorter the time span considered, the more likely the ranking is going to be spurious. 2 referees clearly read the paper and made some good and insightful comments. Very quick handling but refereeing quality just absurd. They also indicated that the paper was better suited to a a different journal. Desk rejected in two weeks. Although the suggested changes would have made the paper way too long for an EL pub. Not sure why we didn't get desk rejected. In reality, the paper is poorly motivated and the link between the model and the anecdotal evidence discussed in the introduction is not clear. Very pleased. A year after submission without result? He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. Fair decision and process, 2 mildly positive reviews, editor shot it down. One quite short referee report. Not a good fit. desk rejected in 3 days. Will definitely send again. Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. Note that since the editor(Batten) is handling many different journals at the same time, you should expect relatively slow turnaround time. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. In doubt, Spier decided to reject the paper. Would submit again. 23 hours and 30 minutes after submission, desk reject from Shleifer. Smooth experience, although a bit slow in getting to the paper (quick when they actually did). Journal of the European Economic Association. Editor was great (helpful, insightful, truthful). Very quick. Chat (0) Conferences. Desk reject within 1 day. Strong referees. However, they want to reject whatever you want. the job market for junior economists. Reason: topic/results too narrow with respect to broad audience. Very nice editor. It was a long process but the editor and referees were genuinely helpful.

San Diego County Oak Tree Ordinance, Nitrado Ark Xbox Server Settings, Morriston Hospital Telephone Number, Activebuilding Resident Portal, Labrador Rescue North East Uk, Articles E