econ job market rumors wiki

Fast decision after resubmit. Rejected for not have a theoretical contribution. Reports were split. Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. One of the papers has over 3000 citations. Available November 2022 for positions in Summer/Fall 2023. Editor followed the second report. With my 4-6 data observations (different journals), EL is definitely the most efficient journal. Appreciate fast review and efficient process. Although other comments on this journal say that the review process is long, I had very different experience. Lousy reports showing lack of proper reading. Relatively Quick Process. Home. Totally automated review process; one referee carps even with demonstrably invalid reason and you have no right even to contact the editor. Very tough but very useful report! Editor clearly read the paper and claimed a referee did too. We were asked to collect additional data for our existing experimental treatments to increase our statistical power. 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. Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. Referee comments were pretty minor. Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. AE decided to reject! Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. What follows is a summary of what I see as the key advice, with links to other resources that go into more depth or do a better job than I can. Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. 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. I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. The editor's comments show that he is totally uninformed about the literature. Not submitting again to this journal. Finance Job Rumors (489,527) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,815) Micro Job Rumors (15,246) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,029) China Job Market (103,535) Industry Rumors (40,351) The editor is not related to my field, but also decided not to get an expert's opinion. very comprehensive report. Don't know why Elsevier is silence about this behavior from Batten. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. Terrible referee did not understand LATE and simply could not be satisfied. Recommended to try other health journals. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. To be honest, I had a hard time understanding exactly what the point of your paper is. Two straightforward reports calling for revision. comments were not very insoghtful, but decision & process overall fair. The referee reports were good. Desk reject within 1 day. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. Hastily written by PhD student. decent referee reports, overall good experience. Not big enough contribution. Six weeks for a desk reject with no reasons offered, Under editor's evaluation for almost 2 months. Thorough review. Very happy with the editorial process. Monica Singhal handled the submission within a bit less than 2 months, and takes time to give a detailed opinion on the paper, impresive! Very efficient process, paper improved with referee comments. Very clear and good process. Will never submit to this journal again. Had to withdraw after waiting for nearly a year and a half. One good report, the other one poor. Horrible experience. Fair. 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. Great experience. Good experience overall. The other clearly did not understand what is going on and wrote some junk. Finished revision in 1 month and once resubmitted took them 2 weeks to accept. Go report in 2 days. Basically, just a short e-mail saying that it cannot be accepted and it is more suited to some other types of Journals. Referee reports were on the shrt side, but competent and polite, unfrtunately I doubt that the comments received will help improving the paper. It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. 2 week desk reject. In? After "awaiting referee selection" for 4 months, I sent a query and got one referee report. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. Given all that has happened with JPE in recent years, don't think I will waste my time and money with them again. Grossbard handled the paper and accepted conditional on rewrite around her useless and poorly cited old work. The referee told us to delete the literature review. Editor (Voth) was polite but did not say much. Besides, the editor's messages were rude. Slow. Fast. Yes, he can ask for odd things. for a desk reject with quite boring paragraphs from the editor along the lines why this is not using Angrist-Pischke methods One of the referee reports was very well informed. One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. Complete waste of time. Invites for 2nd round zoom interviews sent today. Very good experience all around. Advisors: Raquel Fernndez, Martin Rotemberg, Elena Manresa. No progress in six months although I send emails to push. reports show referees were serious. The model is not in AE's taste. Report was fair and helpful and editor's letter was kind. Desk rejected in a month. Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. Desk reject after 3 days. The other was low quality and made factually incorrect statements that seemed to influence the associate editor's assessment of the manuscript. Good experience. Rather slow desk reject. Very quick rejection, but I received a nice response from one of the co-editors. reports, the reports were all nice an constructive. useless reports. totally useless editor. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. Taiwan was born in Wuhan. 2 weeks for a desk rejection, editor actually read the paper and commented on it before deciding it is more suited to a field journal. Expected a lot better from this journal. Rejected within one day. Suggested to submit to a good journal. Will never submit there again. Expected better, expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision. Poor comments, one paragraph each asking for minor changes but rejected. One positive report, one negative. Editor provided a letter with comments. Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. Reviewer number two said the paper had no relevant contribution beyond those of a paper recently published in a top journal. 3 months was a little long to wait, though. one positive, one negative report. Very kind letter from the editor. Massive work. Reports were pretty good. Useful reports, pleasant experience overall. 6 weeks. Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. Never again! Terrible experience. Efficient and fair. It is definitely not worth the long wait! Pretty sure the editor didn't even read the paper. Poor report! Three good reports and fair decision. Appreciate the quick turnaround. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, excellent experience. Didn't refund the submission fee. Annoyed because all of the concerns were addressed and yet she could not be bothered to re-read the paper. Seemed not to like the idea of the paper without actually reading it. useless comments from editor. Home Help Search Welcome Guest. The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. Big lie. Very good experience overall. Very poor handling by editor. Overall, the decision was not fair. Good experience. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. Editor rejected, but I have a feeling that both refs recommended R&R for different reasons. Submission fee refund. He does not read the paper, or he has no expertise. Mentioned but did not provide reports, just asked for a more policy oriented conclusion, unresponsive to emails. Took a year for the paper to get accepted. Decent reports, rejecting for fair reasons. Seemed like he carefully considered the paper. Very efficient process with explicit timeline. Absolutely pathetic handling by Horner. Very good referee report. Two referee reports, one good and constructive and the other so-so. In all the rejection was fair. One synthetic but straight to the point referee report, asking for very specific and reasonable corrections to the paper. Useless reports. Bad Experience. Very efficient process. One very good report, one OK. One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal. Followed up on them, sent it to another journal, and got accepted very quickly. Associate editors are very professional. According to him one referee is in favor but the other is not. Went on to publish in a better journal. Two referees made great reviews and very detailed comments. Great experience overall, Editor decided not to wait for the late referee not to slow down the process. Good quality reports for a low-ranked journal, though. Overall good experience. Mean and non-sense comments from one referee so that the editor had to apologize. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. The first response took more than I expected, but the referee's comment was very constructive. The comments are of bad quality and show poor knowledge of economics. Took 7 months to give 1 referee report with just 5 lines. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so." Job Market. 2 constructive reports that improve the paper after 2 months. Good turnaround time. Desk after 1 day from Katz, very polite and parsing of the paper, although not GI. No reply yet. Strong referees. One referee report excellent. Awfully slow for a desk reject, but at least the editor gave a couple of helpful comments and it was clear he'd read the paper with care. I resubmitted in January, and the paper was accepted with minor revisions in March. Submission fee not refunded. Excellent referee reports and detailed feedback from the editor on what to focus on and what to ignore. My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. 2010 . very rigorous comments. Referees mostly wanted me to provide more background and a deeper policy discussion. Some comments from the editor, some are useful. The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. Very poor experience. 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 . Three months for an "out of scope" decision. Moderately useful reports. DE claims to have too large acceptance rate. Mark Ramseyer. Learn More About Katia. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Painfully crushing rejection, as all referees agreed it was a good paper, but had some valid concerns about length and possible general interest contribution. The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. EconJobRumors.com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is a website for academic economists. -> Toilet. Helpful and doable things. Reviewers made many incorrect comments and almost no useful comments, editor straight up said didn't read the paper, but reviewers are negative so reject. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. REHO is a scam, not a journal. Desk reject after few days with some useful suggestions. The paper was not a good fit for the journal and another journal was recommended. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. Was rejected today by editor as only 1/2 referee reports submitted. Our results didn't change. useless reports referees didn't seem to read the paper and appeared not to be experts .. Desk-rejected in 7 days: "the paper lacks sufficient political economy content to be appropriate". The literature review was complete! Serious referee report, but without any helpful particular suggestion. Ridiculous. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. I was surprised these two letters resulted in the overall reject. Actually a nice experience. No comments from the unknown handling editor. Actually Journal of Economic Policy Reform. Both referees have good understanding of the topic. Very quick response from Larry Katz. It took 3 weeks to get a desk reject letter. Rejection reason: not general interest enough. Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. Stay away! Pleasant first publication experience. Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. When he rejected the paper for the Economic Systems, he then asked me to submit the same paper to his journal "Emerging Markets Finance and Trade." Crawford rejects although refs and editor recommends revision. Fast reviews with reasonable comments. But I'm a nobody. The journal is a joke! We have done that, after several weeks, no answer. Very fast. Between two referee reports and two conference discussions, I have some things to consider for future submission. Reports only partly helpful. AE also helpful. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. Handled by an editor who is not in the same field. They said they could not find reviewers. Three months. I am surprised no R&R. Website | CV Process a bit slow. Quality Ref reports. Standard rejection letter. Apparently JHE considers itself general interest. Harold Cole was excellent as editor. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. But the other one was useless; it's like a collection of "minor comments.". Initial response was quick. Of these, 90 graduates (72%) chose positions at academic institutions and 38 graduates (27%) chose non-academic . Very high quality referee report. 4 months for ref. The reports were good and helpful. Very helpful feedback that made this a better paper. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Finance Job Rumors (489,493) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,790) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,019) China Job Market (103,530) Industry Rumors (40,349) Paper got desk rejected shortly after. Will submit again. This particular group controlling urban economics now will not let any differing view go through AER and JUE. Reason cited: weak paper. 2.5 months to get a RR. No negative comments from referees on the substance, but one referee just didn't like it. the job market for junior economists. The other is constructive but not as good. Long time to first response, given 3 months for a lengthy (single) report, but resubmitted and was accepted in like 3 hours. Recommended second tier general interest journals. editorial team do not respond to email. Quick, very good feedback. Desk rejection in one day by Giovanni Perri. All other comments were mentioned and addressed in the paper. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. After ref rejection at an AEJ submitted here we followed editors suggestion and submitted to JUE. Editor was fair, his decision was understandble, but 6 months is clearly too long. The editor Adonis Yatchew was very helpfull and efficient. The ME provided helpful comments on top of the two reviewers'. [2] [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors . Rejected in 10 days with no comments. Overall, great experecience! Quick turnaround, helpful comments, will submit again, Desk rejected in less than a week. All are lengthy and constructive. Editor desk rejected after a couple of days due to lack of fit. Entire process takes 1 month. Quick and well handled by the editor. Great experience. One referee provided lots of helpful comments and even some ideas for future research. I read on EJMR how clubby and unfortunately British this journal is, but never expected it to be true. Candidate in Management. Lastly withdrew for good after another six months. 6 weeks for a desk reject. His own comments were not based on the reports. 1 R&R round. Incredible experience: referee said he/she didn't like the paper. To be fair, some of the editors comments were sharp. one so-so report and one excellent report, Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics. Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. 2 detailed comments from referees. Super quick process. 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). Great experience. Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Putea MatuaWellington - New Zealand, Assistant Director, Economics First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. Overall, not bad experience. Have emailed for status to no avail. Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. 3 months for conference decision and 2 months of journal decision. I've been around the block a few times, published in top 5, and most of my articles get cited considerably more than average for the journal. Very, very disappointed! Portuguese Economic Journal* Great process. editor was nice enough to drop a page or so of precise and useful comments. Emailed journal to withdraw submission after 14 months. A complete discrage. editing team is real class act. rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report. Very good reports. Bugaga! Advisor: Prof. Caterina Calsamiglia. Response time was decent. Reviews were not particularly helpful. Very useful suggestions by the editor who read the paper carefully. Got accepted after a week. Overall a good experience that will help the paper! Useful ref reports and helpful comments from co-editor. Comments were quite simple, I resubmitted after one month, and the editor accepted the paper after 40 days. While the paper was rejected the referee reports were in-depth and very helpful. The Editor suggested a more traditional public finance journal. Two helpful referee reports. Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days. Advisors: Robert Seamans (Chair), Gino Cattani, Sinziana Dorobantu, Arun Sundararajan. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. A bit slow, but kindly acknowledged by the editor. We did. very quick response and a useful referee report. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. Revisions done in another two months and sent back to referees. Pages for jobs that begin in 2023: African & African American Studies 2022-2023 American Studies 2022-2023 Anthropology 2022-2023 Archaeology 2022-2023 Art History 2022 . One report very useful, and the other two not that much. On the whole very good experience. Overall, a very good experience. Desk reject due to lack of scope of the manuscript, Rejected for a lack of contribution. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. I had. Detailed comments. One positive and one negative report. Shleifer was the editor. 2 decent reports. Got the rejection after 185 days, referees like to wait until the last couple of days to read papers! Desk reject in 1 week. Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. One positive review, one negative, editor took the side of the negative. One good report, one bad report. After two weeks we got a desk rejection with a very impersonal letter which made us think that the editor did not even read the intro. Nothing more frustrating than paying to submit a paper that was desk rejected after 2 months with no reason given for rejection "I find the overall contribution too small to justify publication in AEJ". Rejected for not significant enough contribution. Doesn't seem it was read beyond the title. Editor took issue with a methodological aspect of the paper and rejected. The new editors did a good job, Just a joke, 2 years of "under review" for nothing, two useful comments with one minor, another some work, Good comments, nice time management from the editor, efficient process. Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal. Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. Keep asking to submit to other conferences/journals RCFS/RAPS. Great experience. Very constructive and useful for revisions. Had to withdraw after ten months of waiting. Extremely bad experience with this journal. Not general interest enough. Much improved paper. Nice words from the editor. I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. 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)? 1 month for R&R, 1 week for acceptance after revision submitted. Not surprised to hear that the impact of the journal is going down. Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). Fast desk reject on subjective grounds. Although desk-rejected, I am very satisfied. Some warm words from the editor. Re-submission took a week to be finally be accepted. High quality, detailed referee reports, which substantially improved the paper. Worst experience ever. Form letter. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. Ona day later they reected it with a one sentence crappy referee report. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. Outright accept after first resubmission still came as a surprise given JIE typically has 2-3 rounds. Aina (Zurich), Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA), Conte (U Bologna / UAB), Stockler (UAB), Health Economics Labor and Demographic Economics Urban, Rural, Regional, Transportation Economics In, Fan (Stanford), Lepper (Pitt), Mahmood (OSU), Rehbeck (Ohio State AP), Vidart (UConn AP), Liu (Michigan AP), Yoder (Georgia AP), Mathevet (EUI AP), Cox (Yale postdoc), Choi (Princeton), Craig (Yale postdoc), applied microeconomics, econometrics, and/or macroeconomics, Yang (USC) Vidart (UConn AP) Qiu (Penn) Mills (Princeton) Mugnier (CREST), Borusyak (UCL), Ramos (Harvard), Ostriker (MIT), Sharma (MIT), Vitali (UCL), Crews (Chicago), Druckenmiller (RFF), University of California, San Diego (UCSD), Seck (Harvard), Mills (Princeton), Alfonsi (Berkeley ARE), Rivera (Columbia), Idoux (MIT/Wharton AP), Moscona (MIT), Souchier (Stanford), Chen (Stanford GSB), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Vitali (UCL), Ederer (Toulouse), Lanzani (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Miller (Wharton), Vasudevan (Yale SOM), Nimier-David (ENSAE), Pernoud (Stanford), Kwon (HBS), Fleckenstein (Stern), Hampole (Kellogg), Wang (Stanford GSB), Tang (Harvard), Coston (CMU), Singh (MIT), Yong Cai (Northwestern), Yuling Yan (Princeton), Mou (Berkeley), Jahani (Berkeley), Chang (Yale), Moran (Columbia), Uehara (Cornell), Althoff (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Carry (ENSAE), Conlon (Harvard), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Kohlhepp (UCLA), Minni (LSE), Moscona (MIT), Nguyen (MIT), Otero (UC Berkeley), Pernoud (Stanford), Roth (Uni of Cologne), Thereze (Princeton), Vergara (UC Berkeley), Sturm (MIT), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford). Very fast process, that is why I submitted to the journal. 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit. Editors only pick those with close network. Six months to respond. Click here for more information. Contact: hyejin -dot- park -at . 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. No refund. No ref reports, 1 sentence from editor. Only one referee report in 11 months? 1 really excellent, positive report. Long time to first response and had to chase up editor, but comments were helpful and editor was very engaged in the revision process.

Charlotte Dunkerton Net Worth, Articles E