Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. No meaningful comments. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. Two lines ref report. Very efficient process, better than expected. Although paper is accepted, i would hardly deal with them in the future. Each report was one small paragraph long. PhD & Postdoctoral Research Fellow Job Market Candidates 2022 - 2023 Home Page CV ANDREW HANNON PHD Research Fields: Macroeconomics, Household Finance, Sovereign Debt, Financial Stability and the Housing Market Job Market Paper: Falling Behind: Delinquency and Foreclosure in a Housing Crisis References: Dr. . One useful report and the other less so. if we go by his saying, then all finance articles are purely pointless. One few sentence report after 5 month. Economics Job Market Threads. Advisors: Raquel Fernndez, Martin Rotemberg, Elena Manresa. The co-editor was very efficient and apparently read the paper. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. Referee failed to upload report. Editor desk rejected stating that paper (which was on the program of Top 3 conferences etc.) While the goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). Excellent and clear communication with editors. Surprised at how quickly all went. Poor targeting on my part. Fair decision and process, 2 mildly positive reviews, editor shot it down. Overall an excellent experience. The second editor rejected it. A waste of 250$ and time. EM suggested transfer to a different journal (which desk rejected after 2 hours). Not general interest. 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! $65 down the drain! Editor acknowledge that it was a bad draw. Editor argued I had observational data and no identification, hence instant rejection. Appreciate the quick turnaround. Editor recommended to submit to other journals. The editor rejected it though. Desk rejected in 6 hours. Very quick response. 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. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. Will not consider again. Very good comments from both the reviewers and editors. Learn More About Katia. Articles/sites of interest for students on the Job Market. Generic rejection letter from the editor arguing lack of fit. also received comments from the old reviewer that were better than the first review. Just thoroughly unprofessional report. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. Didn't really get a clear sense from the negative reports why they rejected. Very disappointing experience with the journal and refereeing process. Desk rejected after 3 days. I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. Overall great experience. One referee report---which is actually better than any report ever received with this paper (including those from RFS, JFQA, and MS). 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. Incredibly unprofessional. Worst experience ever. Good experiences --- fast (1 month for both the first and R&R round), good reports, editor is also very helpful. Shame on you, AE. I waited fora long time only to be rejected with a response NOT A GOOD FIT. Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! Rejected with only 1 referee reports and after waiting 10 months! 2 referees clearly read the paper and made some good and insightful comments. Passed the desk (Turner) in ten days. Desk rejected after 40 days. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. Received first reply after 7 weeks. Not being up to claimed "high-speed dissemination" standards. Good experience. Quite annoyed at this journal - AE provided verbatim the referee rejection from another submission journal from three months prior. The reports were good and helpful. rejection. But it does move my prior of affiliation doesnt matter, just the paper (yes, a prior that no one here seems to have). Meaningless reviews. Very pleasant process. One referee liked it, the other and the editor didn't. He gave few recommendations. a bit slowtwo general positive+one negative reports, and the editor rejected itfeel sad, but not too bad experience Average (low) quality reports. less than 2 weeks, recommended field journal. The editor read the paper carefully and made helpful comments. Referee comments were pretty minor. Fast decision after resubmit. 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. 6 weeks to get desk rejected for not being of general interest. American Economic Association Job Market Candidates. Very long wait. the ?Nash? Two very useful ref reports in the first round. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. Welcome to the EconTrack Job Market Information Board, a service hosted by the AEA. Overall good experience. The paper was accepted after the first round revision. Poor. Some people are simply too narrow in the scope of their research to be editors of a journal which claims to be of "general interest". Quick and professional handling by the editor. The editor's letter was well-written. Accepted w/o further revision 18 days after resubmit. 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. To get rejected in a good journal, that is ok since it is part of the business but waiting 10 moths for refereee reports of that quality was a really bad deal. 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. Took 6 months for first reply (ref reject); 1 referee critical but fair, the other one very critical but didn't read the paper carefully. Editor sends paper just to his/her peers with predefined ideas. Nice experience. No evidence anyone read the paper, even though they probably have the highest submission fee among econ journals. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. Fast. terrible experience, after submission my paper was not sent out to referees for more than 6 months. Second report little use. Desk Reject in a Week but it did come with two pages of notes and questions that should help the paper. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Disappointed it wasn't sent out for review, but can't fault them for speed! Still not a fan of this journal. Very efficient journal, 3 very helpful reports from a coeditor and 2 referees. Disappointing. Basically, just a short e-mail saying that it cannot be accepted and it is more suited to some other types of Journals. The editor talked about 4 ref reports. The referee cannot fully understand the model. With hindsight, I got much more out of submitting this paper to TE. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Complete waste of time.. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), Reports not very helpful, paper not in journal scope. A long wait but not very helpful comments. Bad Experience. Letters from the Editor was nice. Referee comments show that it could be an RR but the editor rejected. For a short paper, it took quite a longtime for deskreject without a single sentence relating to the paper. Two reports were reasonable and one report was very low quality. Great turnaround I guess? The revision review was quite fast too. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. fluent ?in? Good comments from refs that really helped the paper. Still, I have to contact them again after 9 weeks because they did nothing with my paper. Actually, it was overall positive. Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided. One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. Came back within 4 hours, nice letter by Katz with suggestions of where to submit, 5 days for a desk reject. No BS, great experience! quick. (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint). Came back to my office at 12:05. Editor identity unknown. 1 Month and 10 days for first decision is too long. One report was very constructive and helped improve the qualitiy of the paper. Editor was Imran Rasul, extremely professional and competent. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. Reasonable referee report. Do not waste your time with this journal. Nice letter. 2.5 months to get a RR. No letter from an Associate Editor, so no idea about who rejected the paper. Duke University. Editor contributed with some helpful comments as well. Second report very good. Strongly recommend this journal for health economists! Summary understated contribution of the paper making it looking boring. Very good comments from both reviewers and the editor, Frank Sloan. Desk reject with what appeared to be constructive comments but on closer inspection were worthless (points already made in the paper). 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) Rejected after revision, very good comments in initial round. But the other one was useless; it's like a collection of "minor comments.". Rejected after revision for reasons that had nothing to do with the revision and should've been brought up on the first decision. Extremely slow journal! The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. So unprofessional and shameful. Got accepted in three days. The other was much more careful. Total turn around time was about 40 days. very disappointing. Good overall experience. Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. Could have been more lucky with referees, but at least it was very efficient. Very quick desk reject. Good experience, great turnaround. Overall, great experience. Apparently JHE considers itself general interest. Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. Decent reports. Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. The quality of the report was disappointing. One year since submission, no replies to my queries shitty journal. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience! I sent an email after 5 months of submission and another after 6 months. Felt somewhat subjective. overall v good experience. Excellent experience. Reject due to the non-response by the referee. a 2 paragraph referee report that was not particularly helpful - at least the turnaround time was fast - might as well have been a desk rejection, Very low quality reports. Fast desk reject. 1 report ok, the other one awful, Referee clearly did not understand the paper. Editor did not even read the paper correctly. Waste of time and money. Really smooth process. After the second round R&R, I only had to deal with the long reviewer. Initial response for R&R was quite fast, but the second response after the resubmission took quite a long time, and it seems that the paper was just sitting at the editor's desk for more than a month before they were assigned back to the referees. Less than two weeks from submission to editorial decision. The initial resposen took too long (almost 4 moth to be sent our to referees). Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. Desk rejected after more than 6 months without any review or comments. As a theoretical contribution, it is not sufficient for Economics Letters. The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. Some nice words from the editor. My first submission in AE and it is the best experience ever. 2 years no reply, then short letter and reject, I would never send there again. Club journal that accepts your paper if you have good ties to the editors. Ref reports were okay. reports: 1 ridiculous, 1 useless, 1 useful, 6 months from initial submission to acceptance. Invites for 2nd round zoom interviews sent today. Our claims were supported. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list. Decent referee reports. But very quick process after contacting editorial office. Editor highly incompetent. The editor picked a new (hostile) referee in the 2nd round. KG was DE in finance. Saying that the topic is not general enough. Not recommended. So-so report. 2 Weeks. Due to a "typographical error" in sending me an email, I had to wait an extra month (and after I emailed asking for a status update) to learn of the rejection - wasting time I could have spent submitting it to another journal. Overall, bad experience. Will submit here again definitely but hate Elsevier so much. The whole process was fast and streamlined. Associate editors are very professional. 4 weeks for first response. Referee reports are interesting and constructive. Good overall experience. Unbased rejection after more than six months with mediocre reports and editorial justification. Two referee reports; one high quality, one very low quality. Fair decision. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Great experience - referee and editor very helpful. rejection after 9 months without any useful comments. Nice experience, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. Waste of the submission fee. Two rounds of R&R. Overall, good experience. Who are these people?? Also very fast. Poor and unhelpful referee reports, club journal. The third referee recommended acceptance, but the editor rejected. 5 weeks to first response. Although the paper got accepted, the quality of the comments and the editor's comments were beyond laughable and actually really make me regret having it sent there but it is too late. Clear and concise communication with insightful and prfound comments by editor and reviewers. Had 2 tough but fair r&r rounds with 2 reviewers and 1 with the editor. 1 month for R&R, 1 week for acceptance after revision submitted. 1 paragraph of superficial non-descriptive comments from each ref, One week to desk reject with no comment at all. Analytic number theorists: your opinion on TK's claimed disproof of the RH ? Desk rejected in 14 days, just long enough to get hopes up, with boilerplate "not general interest.". After 6 months I got an extremely low quality report; looked like the reviewer had no idea about the paper or even the field in general. it ?could ?be ?the ?case ?that ?I ?have? Editor clearly read the paper, sent a long email telling me how much he liked it but that it would likely run into trouble with referees. . After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. Editor's letter mentioned a 2-1 split in favor of rejection, so she rejected. Very fast; useful, reasonably positive report despite rejection. One excellent and positive report. 2022 Job Market Candidates . Rejected by editor. First round of referee reports obtained in another 2 months. Overall experience is good. Waited over 9 month for a half-page low quality report. Helpful comments from referees and editor. Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. No comments on the reason for rejection was given. Decent reports; AE was a bit difficult, but ultimately helpful, Good reports and constructive feedback from AE; only 1 round of R&R. Couldn;t get second referee so editor said he read carefully himself. 1 week: nice, but no fit with general interest. 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. Editor followed the referees suggestion, though with his own view on the paper. Editor rejected on the basis of being too narrow. Disappointing turnaround for this journal. Helpful reports in general. Ultimately, Editor rejected as felt it was not general purpose enough. Oh well. Editor overturned referee's decisions with poor justification. Editorial office very helpful. Fast Review process. Title: Researcher Location: COLOMBIA JEL Classifications:. So, I "told mother", and she was like "What is Edge-mer? The editor's comments show that he is totally uninformed about the literature. Paper: "Regulating the Sharing Economy: A Study of Unlawful Providers". First report provided helpful insights, second - only half page of general comments. Totally automated review process; one referee carps even with demonstrably invalid reason and you have no right even to contact the editor. Quick to online first. 3 months to R&R; 2 weeks for second round; 1 week for final acceptance.
52 Thousandths In Scientific Notation, Is It Illegal To Kill A Bobcat In Texas, Lululemon Pricing Strategy, Invitae Gender Wrong, Basset Hound Puppies Vienna Il, Articles E