Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help. Referee said he just didn't like the paper. in JF in the area). Very poor quality referee report after waiting for more than 7 months. Split recommendations, editor decided to reject which is fair enough. Almost 8 months to acceptance, despite Revised version submitted after 5months. Fair editor. Quick-ish, 10 weeks. Ridiculous. Waste of time, Ok process, but referees either did not read the paper carefully or were inexpert in the field, Referee does not understand the purpose of the paper, clearly not a specialist of the field ; published elsewhere. Website | CV WE got 3 tough and long referee reports. Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. The shitty one referred to multiple papers in very low ranked journals authored by the same set of authors. Waste of time. 1 month to wait for a desk reject is too long. Quite useful to provide further extensions, Fast processing and three excellent referees that helped to substantially improved the paper. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). Very clear and good process. 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. 2 detailed comments from referees. Very long time for first response. The associate Editor Ali Kutan has rejected the paper. Pleasant experience overall. Desk reject within 14 hours(!!!). Three rounds: one major + two minor (the last one being really minor, like copy-editing and missing references minor). Editor provided detailed advice throughout the entire revision process. Will not consider it again. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. (However, because there was only one referee, whose specialty aligned with only part of the paper, he/she barely attempted to comment on much of the paper, perhaps to its detriment.). Editor didn't believe our identification. Stay away! Editor was great (helpful, insightful, truthful). The least the editor could have done is to assign another editor. One good referree report, one positive but unhelpful, one negative and entirely useless. Longish time to first response but good reports and a ref who just loved digging into my equations. Editor said he is sorry for the wait still waiting for the outcome of the second round. Job Market. One decent and one sloppy report, 1 good report, 1 bad one, decent turnaround time. It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. About 14 weeks from submission to referee reject. Avoid at all costs. The overall comments are OK. Actually, not as bad as many people think.Reports by referee and AE were of little help (they raised a few valid points), but this can happen at any other journal too. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Finally withdraw. Would send here again. desk rejected after more than 2 months, very generic motivation (try a field journal), they took the submission fees and thanked me a lot for the payment! No way to check on status. Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. Annoying! Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, O. The editor's comments are not informative. Quick response. Editor wrote half a page and was polite. Paper desk rejected in 3 days. Extremely bad experience with this journal. I had. First round took 2 months. Desk rejected after 3 days. Editor and referees seemed willing to listen to reason which encouraged me to work hard on the revision and make my case when I thought reports misguided. Accepted after two rounds. I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. Awfully slow. Submission refund. Editor gives no justification whatsoever. Reasonable response. First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. 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). Good reports. Crappy reports. Good enough experience and fair. My worst experience ever. Very good experience. Won't be doing that again Actually, it was a Reject and Resubmit because the editor liked the paper, but the reviewer was really harsh and not really understood the paper. Editor rejected after two positive referee reports. Accepted as it is. Fast Review process. No reports provided, but editor made brief helpful comments. Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. Explains longish time to first review. Drop the "Economics." Just "Job Market Rumors." Except when I have coauthored with someone who is at an elite school, I've been desk rejected every time at QJE. 2 weeks for 2 high quality ref reports. The AE also provided his own review. One referee was OK with almost no comments. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. Great experience! It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. Mathematics Jobs Wiki. This is why our profession sucks. Reports very helpful. Very bad experience. The paper was accepted quickly after revision. Fast response time. Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. Ref. It is definitely not worth the long wait! Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. Submitted to conference edition. Some interesting comments, but not much. Overall good experience. it ?could ?be ?the ?case ?that ?I ?have? The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a papers contribution. Accepted two weeks after r&r. Quite good reports and sufficiently fast process. Fast turnaround, I'm very happy with the experience. The editor rejected after 12 months mentioning 4 referee reports. While the goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. Third round (acceptance) took 2 weeks. Initially submitted on 2 Aug, we got the rejection six month later. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Amazing efficiency. Editor chose to follow the suggestion of the AE. High Quality Editing. Reports were split. Fair and constructive comments. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper, no longer a serious all purpose journal imho; "desk reject" after 6 mos on the basis of style in the abstract, Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded, One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end, Terrible experience. 4 weeks for first response. Report from the Editor. Too slow. The process was fair, with good pace. When we chased, we received detailed referee reports and R&R quickly, but were given just 2 weeks to make massive changes to the paper - we withdrew and used comments to publish elsewhere. Only had to face one reviewer in the second round. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. Crawford rejects although refs and editor recommends revision. Slow. rejected after 2 rounds of revisions. Rapid desk reject - editor stated paper was rejected because of applied context (sports), Good reports, led to significantly better paper, Good experience, nice though critical editor, total time to acceptance 10 months. The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. It seems that the referee did not read the paper just pinpointed assumptions he did not like to reject. Paper desk rejected in 4 days. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Turnaround times are reasonable though. Mentioned that they do not consider theoretical papers. Bad to useless reports after a longish delay. Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Reject because aparently would not fit in their journal. Quite upsetting. No input from editor either. Very negative experience. High quality, detailed ref. Remarkable coincidence. Desk rejected after more than 5 months, avoid, International Review of Applied Economics, receive first response within 2 weeks. The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! It was crazy to wait that long for a dek rejectionwas not happy at alland there was not any comments or any reviews at allbasically waited for nothing for 5 months.. 3 weeks for a desk reject. Kohlhase). I suppose if your work is primarily empirical then you'd better do something that's close to the editor's personal interest, otherwise there will always be the criticism that you need more theory. both reviewers rejected for different reasons, reports were overall helpful but some comments showed lack of understanding. Editor (Voth) was polite but did not say much. Very fast reject and they sent my check back. Rejected in 10 days with no comments. Good referee reports, very nice editor (Thomas Lange), International Journal of Production Economics. Very short to the point referee report. The time was not long (bit less than 10 weeks), the outcome was what is normal in this profession (Referee rejection). Submitted a taxation paper that was outside of their comfort zone. it was in 2016. Editor skimmed it at best and decided to reject without comments. one referee report was in after three months, AE waited 9 months before making a recommendation. The decision is motivated by acceptable reasons and suggest potential alternative journals. Good experience. The second one is ok, but rejects for some peculiar reasons. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. Submission for a special issue. Rejected and no reason given. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". Reasonable decision. Only one semi-informative report. reports. Referee clearly didn't read the paper carefully. Comments from Larry very helpful. Expected a lot better from this journal. I want to express my thankness to a refreee, who provded an exremly high quality report. Told not a fit. Of course we don't like the reports, or editor's comments, but there is some helpful stuff. Editor admitted haven't read the paper. No BS, great experience! Very pleasant process. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Close callEditor gave the benefit-of-a-doubt and requested revisions, one good referee, the other not very good, helpful editor, overall, pretty smooth process (always easier to say when the paper ends up being published). Yes, last week. Referees did not show good knowledge of the subject. Tough referee process, won over 3, 4th still had doubts but Editor pushed ahead. Editor did not catch these oversights. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. 11 months for a rejection. Disappointing outcome, but OK overall experience. Negative reaction of referees. Split decision. Three weeks for a desk reject. After resubmission, I was informed that the paper would be sent to another editor (Prof. Mallick). 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. The referee cannot fully understand the model. First report was helpful, second one was literally 2 lines. 1 R was for R&R, another for weak R&R, another for reject. Disappointing referee: a few useful comments, but mostly low-grade and somewhat hostile. Editor obviously read over the paper and gave a couple of helpful comments. Quick desk reject with a few comments from the editor. Editor was our de facto 2nd referee. Paper denounced an error on widely cited paper (unfairly comparing bootstrap vs asypmtotic theory with a nonpivot statistic!). In the second round, the comments are from only one referee, they are easy so revise. Chiara Paz and Alice Wang. Very low process. 2 positive. The editor talked about 4 ref reports. Hello! They just pocketed the submission fee. Manuscript number assigned at 10AM, rejected by 7PM. Within a week with no justification. Market Design; Organizational Economics; Personnel Economics; Race and Stratification in the Economy; Risks of Financial Institutions ; Urban Economics; . Research Fields: Primary: Time Series Econometrics and Non Parametric Econometrics. Placement Director - Alessandro Pavan Email: alepavan@northwestern.edu. Long wait. Editor was very reasonable. Could've desk-rejected instead of two useless referee reports. Grad student who manages inbox for ed took bad review at face value. Referee's only objection is flat out incorrect (i discussed report with colleagues in my field). Great experience overall, Editor decided not to wait for the late referee not to slow down the process. Editor then read the paper and rejected it. AE rejected without commenting on referee report, At least a quick report with one good comment that can help to improve the paper, but with the other points highlighted by the referee were discussed in the paper. Desk rejected in 2 days with a very short report "better fit for a finance journal". Disappointing experience. 1st round 2 1/2 months. Referees' comments were useful. The structure of the game, the policy and strategy spaces and other concepts are not introduced with sufficient clarity. Would submit again. Agreed that this journal is a joke. A drawback is that it takes time. Got accepted after 2nd round. contribution is not enough. Overall an excellent experience. desk with a letter from editor. The second one was a "consultation by telephone" but no feedback to us. Referee comments were pretty minor. Sum up: Fast but not cool, Editor. Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). Lots of minor standardized formating requests, then a gap of 10 weeks to get accepted. After 10+ years in a research institution, counless submission, countless rejections, and some papers published in highly ranked journal, this was definitely my worst experience ever. Finance Job Rumors (489,486) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,772) Micro Job Rumors (15,235) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,012) China Job Market (103,527) Industry Rumors (40,348) 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. but i think it is an important one that should be considered a bonafide econ journal. Friendly referee with clear remarks. Here is all I received: "I regret to inform you that as part of a pre-screening process applied to all submitted manuscripts to the JDE, I have read your paper and have decided not to put it into the regular review process. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. Referee failed to upload report. Very fast decisions. Referee reports are interesting and constructive. Editor clearly read the paper and claimed a referee did too. Complete garbage. Rigor of the paper increased greatly because of the refereeing process. Both reviewers were positive suggested R&R. Bad experience overall. Afwul experience. Such a waste of my valuable time. One very thorough that discussed on every paper point.Good experience, out of scope for this journal, although the most cited paper in this journal also addresses the same research problem, Bad experience. Editing is a service and it is not mandatory. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. Excellent ref report. Only got form letter. A black bitch barks at East Europe. A bit slow but overall a good experience. Second one didn't understand the paper and said it was already written. 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)? It is not very clear why it got rejected at the end (I guess referees recommended rejection but thsi was not stated in their reports so it coudl have been the editor who thought it was difficut to get published given the work needed). Very helpful comments. The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. Update to previous pending post. Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. Very slow. No reply yet. I received 3 paragraphs of comments from the AE. multiple rounds, one of round took about a year. Good experience. Very respectless! Reports included four small bullet points with badly written English. Very short and no relevant comments. Editor handled the paper well. Fair referee reports, but I had to wait pretty long. The quality of the report was disappointing. One referee was in favour of a strong R&R, the other recommended rejection on the basis of mathematical error, the AD seconded the latter. Great management by editorial board although disappointing result. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. Nothing that could not be fixed in 2 days, still reject. referees said "nice but not great". Quite clear they didn't bother to read manuscript. Two rounds of R&R. Rejected on the basis of wrong comments. Overall, bad experience. Desk rejected after more than 6 months without any review or comments. Hostile report stating "I do not belive your assumptions", editor ignored it. Extremely outdated econometric "suggestions" and an overall lack of understanding. Ref reports quite useful. No comments at all from editor other than generic stuff. Although I withdrew my article, editor sent me a rejection letter in a very rude manner. Think about submitting again. One ok report, one poor. Efficient. Editor (frank) did not read the paper and wrote 2 lines arguing that there were many papers addressing similar question (which was not entirely true). Would submit again. faculty) positions. Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. Three rounds. Although my manuscript wa based on stochastic processes, editor rejected it since they were not expert in applied econometrics. Very slow process. We have no new methodology because, when tried, the data suggest traditional fits better: not interesting enough for RSUE. wanted to reject from the outset. not broad enough, it seems that JHR considers themselves as a general interest journal. Nice experience. 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. Held my paper for a full year and rejected it on a split decision with one ref suggesting an RR and the other a reject. a bit slowtwo general positive+one negative reports, and the editor rejected itfeel sad, but not too bad experience Average (low) quality reports. Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. Extremely poor experience. Culter said that there was backlog at JHE. Desk rejected in 2 weeks. one so-so report and one excellent report, Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics. As we addressed all issues in between and it better fitted EL, it was accepted without revision. Referee rejected but with very exhaustive and interesting comments, only one report, but it was fair and can help me to improve the paper, Reports are thoughtful and useful for revisions, it took them 11 months to reject with one referee report of about half a page. Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. Don't submit here. Accepted after revision within 1 month. Which.a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject. Ref reports of high quality, mention half a dozen suggestions for robustness which perhaps amounted to too much for the editor to let this go to revision. Single ref report had three very minor questions. A colleague from another school submitted there and also had to wait a long time for very poor quality referee reports. Still, refreshing for honesty. People need filters. Revised carefully and resent, then they sent to another editor and another reviewer whose report contradicted the first and was very vague. Very quick and extremely professional. 10 days in total!!! Super fast and clear feedback. Which is BS because paper on the same topic was published a couple of months earlier in EJ. -> Toilet. Do not offer any innovative technique. Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. Low quality comments from Frank Sloan. Overall a very nice experience. Much better than regular EL. Rejected within a few hours - unclear that associate editor had read the paper carefully, rather than just the limited 100 word abstract, since comments repeated points made within the paper. Not general interest enough. Both reviews helpful - one very extensive. Great experience. Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. Referee clearly did not read paper closely because the bulk of his (limited) comments focused on why I don't address an issue that is addressed prominently in the introduction. A bit slow for a 2000 words paper. Desk reject within 5 days. Editor didn't even read the paper and rejected it. Excellent process. 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.