very good experience and fast acceptance after addressing referees' comments. Heckman handled paper. Surprisingly, she had one-page long useful comments, which helped improve the paper. not a fair process. The other referee recommended revision. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. Got a rejection within a couple of days. Editor accepted the paper after we made some modifications recommended by the referee. One week to accept. A disappointment. The literature review was complete! Not a great experience. A drawback is that it takes time. The Referee Report was very helpful and quite positive. Not belonging to the club implies rejection. Result are standard and no enough novelty! Desk reject in 1 week. Lousy reports showing lack of proper reading. Helpful comments from referees and editor. Doesn't seem it was read beyond the title. Overall, not bad experience. General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,806) Micro Job Rumors (15,245) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,027) China Job Market (103,534) Insane process and utterly inexperienced referee. Oh well, on to the next journal. Do not waste your time with this journal. Useful and encouraging comments from referees, who appeared very interested in improving the paper and offering helpful suggestions to do so. thorough but not brutal enough - the paper was not very a contribution at all at the time and needed a much harsher rejection, seriously, referee reports were very thorough and demonstrated expertise, rejections were fair - just wish I would have gotten these reviewers the first time I submitted the paper. Expensive but quick. Tried to block publication in the second round as well but editor overrode. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. Recently Announced. "In order to speed up and improve the submission process for both authors and referees, we have raised the number of papers that we reject without seeking reports.". reports. Poor / no justification for decision. There are several claims that are either wrong or very poorly explained (e.g., a Nash equilibrium need not be Pareto optimal!). Clearly, this journal is the main outlet for randomized trial papers and not much else. Second was uninformative. Hyejin Park One high quality report. The dynamic is well known and its implications are rather straightforward in this context. No meaningful comments. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. Other than that, the process was good. Probably the fastest journal I've had experience with. Got two negative referee reports, where one in very useful, and the other is moderately so. Referred to field, seems editor at least scanned and maybe even read the whole thing. I will never submit to this journal. His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting Decision based on 1 one-paragraph review that didn't refer to anything specific in the paper. Decent reports, no complain. One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. Bad journal. Two weeks. Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic. May have a good chance at a higher ranked outlet but if considered speed and diversification then it was a good and correct decision to submit here. Fast turn around with great referee reports that significantly improved the paper. Desk rejected with short but informative comment within 2 days. No refund. Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it. What can i say more? the revision requirements seem achievable. Miserable. SVAT is a full service firm in the areas of bookkeeping, accounting, tax and small . fair and efficient process. Not sure whether it should be called "desk rejection" as the editor said he asked a friend who is an expert in the field to review my paper rather than sending it to referees. Editor wrote a few short comments. desk rejected. We have no new methodology because, when tried, the data suggest traditional fits better: not interesting enough for RSUE. Seems largely like the referee just didn't like it and the editor wanted there to be more significant results (publication bias at its best). Three good reports and fair decision. Fast desk reject on subjective grounds. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. one so-so report and one excellent report, Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. Desk rejection in 6 minutes with a "pretended" letter, which could be used for any paper. A lot of small nit-picky criticism and some factually wrong statements about paper. Nothing in the email suggested that anyone had actually read the paper. They keep the submission fees, very efficient cash cow! Easy Process. Quick response. Rejected with one referee report in just under a month. One associate editor recommended rejection and no other comments/suggestions, but one referee provided very useful comments and s/he seems to be positive about the paper(I post one row which has the wrong info on journal name, should be JPE rather than QJE). Helpful reports and suggestions by the editor. I was politely told that I should have cited more JRU papers. I regret to inform you that we do not consider this work to be of sufficient interest to our readership to warrant publication. Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA)Berkeley - USA, Director of Economics and Data They said they could not find reviewers. They took the paper seriously. None of the criticism was fatal and most was stylistic. Very efficient process, paper improved with referee comments. Got 3 ref reports - 1 RR 2 reject. I am surprised no R&R. Very good referee reports and useful suggestions from the AE, 1 very good referee report, 1 completely useless. One of the worst experience I have ever had. Desk rejected the next day. Good experience! Advisor: Prof. Caterina Calsamiglia. The paper was with the journal for five months and we got a rejection with only one referee report with 5 bullet points (two of which were about typos). One ref decided to the opportunity to pimp their own working paper. Very tough report on the first RR, extensive changes suggested, though all feasible and mostly all improved the quality of the paper. Accepted version was greatly improved. Bad experience. One useful report and the other less so. Referee comments were useful, editor clearly did not understand judging from his remarks, which made it frustrating. Quick responds. Outrageously poor process. Superficial comment. After waiting for more than 5 months I got 0 Referee reports and a rejection based on very loose comments. Good experience overall, took more than 1 year to get one referee report. Would try again. Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. Poor report! I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. Nice editor. To be fair, some of the editors comments were sharp. Placement Director - Alessandro Pavan Email: alepavan@northwestern.edu. Nonder they are going down in ranking in Dev Econ steadily. Editor realized the mistake and suggested to resubmit after implementing additional revisions (another 2+ months of work). Overall, bad experience. Okay referee reports. Avoid at all costs.. Rejected on pretty poor grounds by an associate editor. Fast and serious journal. I recommend. A stronger editor could have handled the submission more efficiently also pointing out the weakness of the 2nd report. 3 months for a desk rejection - no need to comment 4 months until desk reject. Competent referee reports, although one of them extremely hostile. short straightforward paper, should take max 2 hours to read carefully,still under review, editor (Hall) non-responsive, waiting 30 months for response, editor not responding to inquiries. Economics Job Market. No BS, great experience! He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. Very weak report. Good comments from 2 referees, the other did not appear to have read the paper well. Long process. In the opinion of the Editorial Board, this paper does not appear to be a good match (the othee papers are good match) for the International Journal of Industrial Organization and it is unlikely that this paper will ultimately be published in the IJIO. Went on to publish in a better journal. Good strong editors. Paper was long and too dispersed at first, but the managing editor (Baptista) liked it, and the reviewers asked for changes while being receptive. Suggested top field (JPubE in our case). They pocketed the submission fee, though! but i think it is an important one that should be considered a bonafide econ journal. interesting and polite reports. Editor did not intervene and kept hiding throughout. E. Two detailled and useful reports, one irrelevant. Campus visits. Welcome to the Mathematics Jobs Wiki 2021-2022 research positions page. Very bad reports. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. Good comments from refs that really helped the paper. Low quality comments from Frank Sloan. Rejected as "Given the poor quality of provincial GDP statistics, CER has decided not to publish papers based on provincial GDP data for now until the true data series at the provincial level are reconstructed" but they are still publishing with this data see for instance Lv, Liu, and Li 2020 Fiscal incentives, competition, and investment in China. Terribly run journal and I wouldn't advise anyone to submit there. very good experiencefast and helpful comments from the co-editor and two refereesAverage time between the submission and response is about 1.5 months, well run journal. Easy/doable revisions were asked. Assistant Professor, Macroeconomics. Although the referee comments were in detail some of them were really out of the scope. Avoid if possible. These advices do make the paper better. Editor was Imran Rasul, extremely professional and competent. Job Market | Department of Economics | Virginia Tech Ali Kutan is the associate editor, finally accepted the paper. Wasted 17 months. One very good report. The editor's comments show that he is totally uninformed about the literature. basic IV! Extremely fast and thoughtful. But the decision was unfair. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). After 12 months the paper was not even sent out to review or rejected despite 10 emails. Worst experience ever. The revised submission was accepted within a month. Receive reports from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. Co-editor and one referee attacked the paper for something that the paper already explicitly adresses. Other referee hadn't read the paper at all. Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. Quick, professional, very acceptable decision. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Of course we don't like the reports, or editor's comments, but there is some helpful stuff. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. Fast turnaround, I'm very happy with the experience. Desk reject after 2 weeks due to bad fit. Some useful comments from his friend. RR was done with care and useful overall. Definetely the referees liked the idea and wanted to improve paper's quality not to argue with its contribution. Reports were not fair but at least fast response. Rather short reports for waiting 6 months. I sent in my paper and after 2 emails requesting information about the status of my manuscript, I was asked to be patient. Not to say, the shortcoming is an accepted norm till one finds a better way. Fast and fair. Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow. Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. Lowest quality referee reports ever received. Under two month for two reports. One very positive and helpful report, one negative report. Zero constructive comments! Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. Harrington and the anonymous reviewer. 1 week. Took a long time for first response which suggested feasible changes and asked for a revised submission. Job Market. One referee report was fine. 3 months (!) Some comments from the editor, some are useful. Sadly, no mention of why paper was rejected (only minor issues raised). However we had make all of the referee's suggestions and the outcome was not positive. Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). The referee reports were good. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. Still my favorite rejection of all time - used Shakespeare in a footnote, and first referee (whose English was subpar) said that the footnote was "very poorly written." No specfic comment on the paper. The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. All other comments were mentioned and addressed in the paper. Pretty efficient turnaround. Received two detailed reports, which were reasonably useful. 1 report ok, the other one awful, Referee clearly did not understand the paper. Desk reject within 14 hours(!!!). I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. Referees ok, not great. Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! After careful consideration, the JAPE editorial team considers the paper is largely a statistics exercise. Oh well. The negative one is essentially saying "it's not game theory so I don't care." Delays related to second reviewer. Conley is a very nice Editor. Good to be fast, but quality of feedback should be taken care of more at this journal. Economics Journal Submission Wiki | Economics Job Market Rumors Reports were ok but most of the time was waiting for editor to pull his finger out. Desk rejection after three days. 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) So-so experience. No indication that the paper was read. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. They raised concerns that very literally addressed in section heads. They all got published in other journals and a book. 9 months to one ref report which was not helpful. Reports were sound and improved the paper substantially. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. NEVER submit there if you are pre-tenured. On the whole very good experience. Overall, not bad experience. Editor rejected. Katz voted to reject. The contribution of the paper is not enough for EL! Very quick handeling, decent reports. Very bad experience. Split referees, Adda came down on the side of the negative ones. The other report was useless. Too slow. Professional editor. Went from reject/resubmit to revise resubmit 1, revise resubmit 2, finally accepted. Too narrow-minded editor. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. Good overall experience. never submit to this journal again. and then took another seven months. But it does move my prior of affiliation doesnt matter, just the paper (yes, a prior that no one here seems to have). Minor comments from editor who appears to have at least gotten the gist of the paper. One good and two useless reports. 1 good report and 1 not so good. Fast and friendly. Recommend field journals, Useful letter from the editor Dirk Krueger (aprox. One refree report who made very useful comments that helped significantly improve the paper. Editing is a service and it is not mandatory.