econ job market rumors wiki

Great experience - referee reports really helped improve the paper. This is why our profession sucks. Not sure I'll ever submit something to RED again. We regularly reject without referees the majority of all papers submitted to the QJE. One referee report---which is actually better than any report ever received with this paper (including those from RFS, JFQA, and MS). He further suggested an exercise that was already illustrated in 2 figures, 1 table and described in the text! I dont care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. 4.5 months to get the 1st-round comments, 2.5 months for 2nd round. Harrington and the anonymous reviewer. Moderately useful reports. It was a long process but the editor and referees were genuinely helpful. Over 8 weeks for a desk reject due to poor fit for journal. Six weeks for response. One positive report, one negative. 14 days to desk reject, worthless generic email that said nothing on why it was rejected, merely that they "get lots of papers. Serious referee report, but without any helpful particular suggestion. R&r from the editor with major changes suggested by one referee and the urge to strongly orientate the paper towrds one of her (editor) papers. Not general interest. might be a once in a career event. Rigor of the paper increased greatly because of the refereeing process. Fair points by referees. Paper was internally valid-(ish) but not a big enough contribution. No response for seven and a half months. In terms of rejections this is probably as good as it gets. Good experience overall, took more than 1 year to get one referee report. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Fairly standard rejection letter, not general enough. Quick response from referees and editor. one week to accepted with minor changes. Two lines ref report. Absolutely pathetic handling by Horner. I don't think he/she took a wee bit of pain to find out the context. Actually, 57 months in total. Search by field of study. Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic. Editor obviously read the paper. Advisors: Robert Seamans (Chair), Gino Cattani, Sinziana Dorobantu, Arun Sundararajan. Paper got desk rejected. Desk Rejected after 2 days. Fair and useful comment by the editor. 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. "We are hesitant to publish purely empirical papers" comment could have been boilerplate but seemed uninformative, Exceptionally quick turnaround times. One month for the desk reject. After 4 months it remained Under review and these comments I get from the Reviewer: "You have a good idea. The reviewer and the editor did not understand the paper. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. Very quick process! 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. No value for such a high submission fee. Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. Incredibly tough process with three rounds of revisions - first round ended up me writing a response as long as the original paper. Very disappointing to have no word on a paper that got R&R with minor revisions in a similar ranked journal half a year later, Desk rejection after three months, editor apologized for delay, Desk accepted, sent to R&R for less than a month. Took 4 months to report that the article was not a good fit and return without reports. I really appreciated the clarity the editor provided in helping to navigate the referee reports. Two referee reports: 1 seemed to miss basics of the paper and didn't provide useful insight/comments and the other was exhaustive, insightful, and useful moving forward. The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. Don't think they even bothered reading the first page. the comment above was for another journals. I got the referee reports after 2.5 months from submission. AE editor rejects a paper that passed the desk at much better journals. The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. Poorly managed journal. Decent reports, rejecting for fair reasons. Report very critical but useful nonetheless. The journal is a joke! Stay away from JAE. Would try again in the future. If you don't like my paper then desk reject the first time, and don't ask me to resubmit! Desk reject after 2 months! Download the MIT Economics Job Market Packet. Good experience. Submitted in the covid special issue. Two referees, two weak R&Rs, editor rejects despite the recommendations of referees. Good comments, helped improve the paper. Desk rejected in 8 days. OK process, but some reports were useless. One referee report after 11 months. 2 weeks for desk reject. Desk reject after 27 days by Kurt Mitman. Ali Kutan is the associate editor, finally accepted the paper. Surprisingly, she had one-page long useful comments, which helped improve the paper. Job Market. It seems to me that the editor rejected based on how well the article was written, rather than the substance of the work. A bit slow for a 2000 words paper. 2 was more critical. Overall I feel paper rejected because of third negative review. Pretty efficient turnaround. Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. The referee made also several nonsensical remarks about the methodology giving a signal that s/he hasnt thoroughly went through the paper. Editor agreed = reject. Shame on Co-Editor. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. Old fashined. Some reasons given. Very good experience. The editor (Midrigan) collects three reports within 75 days. One referee suggested R and R. Other referee rejected (AE and DE supported this). HUMAN HELP: The Placement Chair for the 2022-2023 academic year is Professor Ben Handel, handel@berkeley.edu. While the ref rejection runied my day, I must conclude that the process was very efficient and the editors/refs earned every penny of the submission fee based on the feedback I received. Slow as hell. Very fast process. So there is zero feedback. Total waste of time. It is a disgrace to the profession reflects poorly on the journal. Otrok rejected within 7 days; considerable comments on the paper, though the three major points are either just wrong or addressed (one of them prominently) in the introduction of the paper. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. Also suggested 3 very good field Journal. Apparently is unaware of large literature in multiple fields to which topic pertains. We saw none. Editor sat on completed reports for 2 months to give a two sentence rejection response. 2 (ridiculous) referee reports, poor handling by the editor. Efficient and fair. Editor decided to reject it. I only regret not withdrawing this. Referee reports were quite helpful in refining the paper. Rejection reason: not general interest enough. Process was a complete disgrace. Editor read the paper and outlined clear (and fair) reasons for rejection. 48hr desk rejection with a weird comment from the editor; You did not address related marketing literature! Insightful comments by both referees and editor. Though nothing extremely deep, comments were of acceptable quality. Waiting was attrociious and final rejection not properly justified since reviewers went AWOL. Turns out that means he's following the Schwert model: don't read the paper, regurgitate the reviewer's comments in the decision letter. 2.5 months to get a RR. Received the standard 50% fee refund (wow, so useful), Generic desk reject w/o further information, Desk rejected after about 1 month. good reports. Very reputable journal with fast response policy which is good for authors: desk rejection in weeks, referee rejection in 2-3 months (usually). Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. One very good report, the other average-to-good. Comments from Larry very helpful. quick turnaround and helpful referee report. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. Nice experience despite a rejection. Desk rejected within 10 days because the topic was not fit to the journal (it may have been a reasonable response given the topic). 4 weeks for first response. Very fast and efficient. They changed their system recently and the new system indicated that my paper had not been submitted so I waited 5 months for nothing. 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. Finance Job Rumors (488,736) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,359) Micro Job Rumors (15,223) Macro Job Rumors (9,790) European Job Market (100,917) China Job Market (103,439) Industry Rumors (40,300) Constructive referee report. I suspect a tight club. Finance Job Rumors (489,506) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,795) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,021) China Job Market (103,531) Industry Rumors (40,351) Rejected with one referee report in just under a month. The report I did get back (in the form of an email from the editor) was not very informative (referee claimed "expressing time series as deviations from trend does not produce a stationary time series". R&R only takes one week. Very good experience all around. fast turnaround. very good ref reports. Available November 2022 for positions in Summer/Fall 2023. Fields: Applied Microeconomics, Labor Economics, Quantitative Macroeconomics, Development. The paper was not sent to the referee but instead the editor said it was reviewed by the editorial board. Avoid at all costs. paper.? Too slow for a short paper, AE spent 4+ months to write very short and useless report. Was contacted again after another two years promising that my paper was to be considered, and say yes please do. 2/3 ref reports were detailed and useful. Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). Checked status online after a month to see the outcome. The editor had good words about the paper but one ref didn't like it, so he rejected it. 2010 . Recommended to try other health journals. Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. Referee cites one crucial assumption to kill the paper, but the paper does not make that assumption, and clearly explains it. Overall very good experience. Seven months at least the reports where good. nice experience. One good report, one bad report. I have no problem receiving a desk-reject, but the stated reasons show no understanding of our research. only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. Two days between handing in the revision and acceptance. My impession was that the editor did not understand the paper the first time (hence no comments the first time) and clearly did not understand the unprofessional behavior of the referees. Very good referee and associate editor report. Good reports. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. Clearly the paper was not good enough for the JIE. two referee reports. Great judgment. Poor report! one positive, one negative report. Click here for more information. I don't disagree with decision, but too long for a relatively straight-forward empirical paper. Both referees suggested papers to be cited in the literature review, which seem like their own papers. Comments are helpful. Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow. No feedback from handling editor, No refund. Desk Reject, No Comment, Horrible Experience- THEY DO NOT REFUND the submission fee. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. The top traffic source to econjobrumors.com is Direct traffic, driving 56.39% of desktop visits last month, and Organic Search is the 2nd with 42.93% of traffic. Referee said there is a mistake in the proof. Suggested field journal. extremely slow. Whole process super quick. In print a couple of weeks later. Desk reject in 1 week. contribution is not enough. It was quick. Even though the outcome is positive, I blame the editor for not selecting competent enough referees to begin with. Very good referee report. Desk-rejected after ten days. The model is not in AE's taste. Going into the ninth month with no response. Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. One magnificient + one so-so ref report. Some conflicting recomms that editor didn't address. Tried to block publication in the second round as well but editor overrode. No indication that the co-editor read the paper. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. Very, very disappointed. You received a high fee, you explain at least one sentence about your decision making. Desk rejected after a week with no comments. Both editor and referees liked the paper, comments from referees are on the point and constructive. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. One very good and helpful report. Withdrew my paper after 8 months of no contact from Editor, referee, etc. Do not waste your time with this journal. Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. Had a paper published there recently. Invited to submit for a special conference issue and then the editor desk rejected. The process was very fast. Will submit again. Basically max 3-month turnaround from their side at any stage. ", Fast response. Osbourne rejected following a 6-7 line bs report by adding his own very cheap comments. Referees all showed an understanding of the paper and suggestions were useful. The other review was somewhat on point in its criticism, though I can'r give him/her the credit as the shortcoming was itself mentioned in the paper. One good and two useless reports. 20 Feb 2023. We give the editors one week to judge the overall contribution and if acceptable send your paper to an associate editor. Highly recommend this journal for a paper that wouldn't make it to top 5. Mostly unhelpful report filled with numerous unnecessary resentful and bitter. No referee reports, just got notified I was accepted. Not a great experience! Desk rejected in 10 days. Received acceptance on the same day i resubmitted the paper. But no referee reports were supplied to me. Very efficient process. Editor read the paper and gave helpful feedback. Website | CV Good reports. Considering withdrawing. It has had it uses as a source of gossip but it accumulated the worst of any group of mostly 20 something American men. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. Very good reports, very effective handling of the editor. However, they want to reject whatever you want. Unbelieveble how fast some journals work!!!!! Nothing substantial to improve the paper. major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). All reports were useful and very demanding. Editor rejected the paper based on the decision of board of editor. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Two useful reports that improved the paper. Had wait for the first response awfully long. Incredible experience: one of the referee report told us that a working paper was published on almost the same subject (and justifies our rejection) but this working paper was published 5 months after our submission ! It took 18 months after first revision. Editor suggested alternative outlets. The editor rejected it though. He requested that we sent him a reminder after a week. Also one referee was clueless and did not read the paper. We will not be making any further offers this year. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. good referee reports and relatively quick response, 1 Report after 8 months, Seemed like all points raised were easily answerable. editor is dumber than a second coat of paint. That was also a very fast and good experience, though not the outcome I had hoped. Submitted in 2012. Useful letter from the editor. 3 reports in 28 days. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. Desk rejected within two weeks. Welcome to the Mathematics Jobs Wiki 2021-2022 research positions page. He suggested a general interest journal. Sent it to EL on Christmas Eve, got the desk reject from Gomez right after Christmas on 26th for not enough contributions. Very efficient process with explicit timeline. Desk reject with what appeared to be constructive comments but on closer inspection were worthless (points already made in the paper). Mildly positive referees but reject nonetheless. Yep, it is. Placement Administrator: Stephanie Burbank 650-725-6198 sburbank@stanford.edu. Job Market. Extremely bad experience with this journal. Couple of comments why the paper does not fit (relatively reasonable). Very fast; useful, reasonably positive report despite rejection. 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. One referee suggests alternative data sources for robustness even though it took as a year to hand-collect the original data. Suggests a field journal. Very good experience, competent referees and quick feedback after the resubmission. One report very solid and useful, another (two-paragraph one) looks confusing. Constructive feedback from AE. Agreed that this journal is a joke. Took a long time for first response which suggested feasible changes and asked for a revised submission. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. Also revisions handled quite efficiently! Empirical results didn't match their political priors so recommended rejection. A good journal, Quick and fair outcome with a nice response from the editor, Good experience with every step completed in a timely fashion. The other one was less so. Reports very helpful. Recommended field journals Clueless editor thinks results are of narrow interest. I will never submit to this journal. Super fast handling by Pro. Amazing turnaround. Victoria Ziqi Hang (U of Washington), Freddie Papazyan (UCSD), Lukas Bolte (Stanford), Christine Szerman (Princeton), Alfonsi (Berkeley), Raghav Malhotra (Warwick), Regina Seibel (Zurich), Philipp Wangner (Toulouse), Anna Vitali (UCL), Morten Grindaker (BI Business School), Tony Fan (Stanford), Elena Ashtari Tafti (UCL), Xiao Shan (Zurich), Andre Sztutman (MIT), Via Twitter: Matranga (Chapman), Barreto (Sciences Po), Coly (PSE), Galvez (Banco de Espaa), Petracchi (Brown), Miglino (UCL), Casella (UPenn), Morzenti (Bocconi), Perdoni (Edinburgh), Possnig (UBC), Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson), Borghesan (Penn), Van der Beck (Swiss Finance Institute and EPFL), Ferey (LMU), Seibel (Zurich), Acquatella (Harvard), D'Adamo (UCL), Vattuone (Warwick), Mugnier (CREST), Decker (Zurich), Morazzoni (UPF), Decker (Zurich), Altmann (Oxford), Jin (BU & CMU), Diegert (Duke), Guigue (CREST), Leroutier (SSE), Ramakrishnan (WUSTL), Souchier (Stanford), Banchio (Stanford GSB), Sullivan (Yale), Acquatella (Harvard), Jin (BU), Diegert (Duke), Herstad (Chicago), Schaner (USC),Gudgeon (West Point), Wiseman (Berkeley), Kochar (USC), Li (MIT Sloan), Ostriker (MIT), Zou (Oregon AP), U.S. Thanks Amy! Suggested a field journal, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. reports. 2.5 are very positive. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. All good, minor additions were suggested. Average Quality R-Reports, one missed one has good comments. Couldn;t get second referee so editor said he read carefully himself. The paper is mostly empirical and they asked for massive extension of the dataset. Most inefficient handling ever. Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. Post an advertisement. The editor suggested an alternative outlet, which was where the paper eventually got published. Nice words from the editor. Difficulties to reach the editor, but useful report and very fast decision (1 day) after submitted the revised manuscript. Sent it to another top 5 instead where it got accepted after one round of revisions - never give up guys! two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. Rejected due to data limitation. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. Second report very good. 1 very good referee reports, 1 mediocre, editor was nice. Desk after 1 day from Katz, very polite and parsing of the paper, although not GI. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. To avoid. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. Expected better, expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. It took me a lot of time to deal with unqualified comments. Scam. Ridiculous. Do not submit there. R&R in two months. things slowed down because of covid. Suggested a more specialized journal. Fair decision. A very detailed and fair review of our research, providing a balanced judgement of our achievements. Flores, Jairo. great referee report, great editor, not so great AE, Two good reports providing many suggestions regarding how I should modify and extend the paper. The positive report points out more contributions than we claim. Nice words from Editor. Generic desk reject within 2 weeks. Used reports from AER. After fully addressing the reviewers' comments at each round, the article got rejected in the third round with a totally "ex nihilo" issue risen by one of the reviewers, who never mentioned the issue before. Paper is about a politically charged issue, so I would like to think that more than one reviewer should be asked to submit a report. 1 month + 10 days for desk rejection. Editor claimed an expert in the field reviewed the paper while the referee admitted in his first sentence of the report that he is not. 2 months to R&R, revisions accepted by editor about a week after re-submission. Thorough referee reports with substantive comments. Will not consider it again. Overall, the reports were good so no complains. Excellent referee reports and detailed feedback from the editor on what to focus on and what to ignore. Really bad experience (Midrigan was the editor). Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy, Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript. Two weeks for R&R. I did what was asked, and the revised paper was accepted by the editor after one week. 5 days, paper is too specific for QJE, Helpman suggested another journal. From here on, AEJs are the way to go outside top 5. Rejected for arbitrary reasons. Second round took 30 minutes, from submission to acceptance. Accepted once I satisfied the referees. High quality editing. I wish my coauthors would not be too sad being rejected. Not a particularly good experience, constructive reports, editor had read the paper and gave additional comments, One bad/objectively false report, one useful report. Editor (Voth) was polite but did not say much. Finished revision in 1 month and once resubmitted took them 2 weeks to accept. Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. Big fat load of help. 2 months after first submission of manuscript. Charging for this should be a crime. Single-blind review system for a 250 bucks fee. Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half. Vastly improved the paper but had to submit elsewhere. Will never try it again. After ref rejection at an AEJ submitted here we followed editors suggestion and submitted to JUE. Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. Solid referee report and very quick response. Will submit again. Reject and resubmit although both referees and AE advised revision. The Editor Requate cannot distinguish between partial and general equilibrium. I feel that mediocre editors are too scared to consider papers unless at least one of the authors is a big shot. Not a great experience. Decent referee reports. Very constructive comments in the 1st round, quicking converging in the 2nd round. Editor took issue with a methodological aspect of the paper and rejected. I needed to contact the editorial office to know who the editor was, if the paper was sent to referess and etcc, and this after more than a month that the paper was submitted.

Middletown Football Roster, 1968 Parade All American Football Team, Articles E