The report was substantive and some comments were helpful, though there was only one of them. This was high risk but of course at the end worth it because it is a good journal. Good experience! 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) No feedback at all. The reason was that the, Andrew Samwick rejected within 2 days, Topic is too speacialized for EL. Andrew Foster took a full month for a desk without a comment. No comments from Katz except go to field journal. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. At least the process was fast. Referees did not understand the contribution of the paper. Reviews were not particularly helpful. Finance Job Rumors (489,006) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,503) Micro Job Rumors (15,223) Macro Job Rumors (9,792) European Job Market (100,940) China Job Market (103,450) Industry Rumors (40,309) Professional and useful oversall. Zero constructive comments! High quality, detailed ref. Conley is a tremendous editor. 4 weeks for first response. 2 days to get a desk rejection. No specfic comment on the paper. But I understand it may not have been a good fit. They kept the application fee. 1 extremely helpful report and 2 so so ones. Extremely slow journal! Very unlucky submission: First round Reject and Resubmit. Useless reports. We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. Expected at least some referee reports but got a bad match editor-wise. Quick and well handled by the editor. Poor referee reports. He wanted to give the paper a careful read and this was not possible immediately. Expected a lot better from this journal. Good reports. Slow moving. Three poor reports. The paper was accepted quickly after revision. Bazinga! solution? Two years for such outcome. Poor / no justification for decision. Almost two months for desk reject, no submission refund. Articles/sites of interest for students on the Job Market. Big fat load of help. No regrets, Good reports, not extremely helpful, but good. Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. 1 referee report after 1 year, referee did not like the idea, editor Pok-sang Lam. 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. The paper was "with the editor". I am surprised no R&R. Desk reject after 30 hours, helpful comments from the editor. First response in less than 3 months. That is, the handling of the submission took almost 4 months, I think this is unacceptable: what is the point to have quick referee reports if the editorial team takes such a long time? I understand there is variability in this process, but it was a terrible experience. Five weeks "with editor" to a boilerplate desk reject, then they asked me to applaud them for a "speedy decision.". Useful comments from the editor (Stefan Nagel). "Referee report" Biggest joke on Earth!! Website | CV Fast Review process. Two rounds of R&R. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Will never submit to this journal again. Fast turnover. 3 months for a desk rejection - no need to comment 4 months until desk reject. Same referee as for a previous submission to a high-ranked journal. Desk reject after 2 months. I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. Desk reject within a few days. University of Sheffield. Editor overturned referee's decisions with poor justification. Club journal that accepts your paper if you have good ties to the editors. Good reports. (310) 206-1413. One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. Extremely valuable referee reports and advices from the editor. Bad experience on the whole. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. Standard rejection letter. re?write ?the ?paper ?with ?the ?help ?of ?some one? the revision requirements seem achievable. Very reputable journal with fast response policy which is good for authors: desk rejection in weeks, referee rejection in 2-3 months (usually). Fantastic experience. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. Two very useful referee reports. Fair decision. all in all, a costly but friendly and competent experience. They should just ask me $60. Rejected, but editor and referees were fair. main message was that paper is a poor fit. Yes, last week. Worst experience so far. Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. Polite / nice email from Editor. FYI: Your editor sucks). I got two very different referee reports, one was very critical but absolutely low quality. He had nothing but praise for it and offered good suggestions. Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations, two reports, comments not always very clear on what was wanted but still helpful. The editor (Mallick) gave us some additional advice and was ok with the result. One referee seemed inexperienced and little informative comments. Desk rejected within a week. Comments are constructive. Overall, I was disappointed not by the outcome per se, which is part of the game, but by the poor judgment of the referee. Very good and useful referee reports. Took way too long prob will avoid in future. Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". 2 (ridiculous) referee reports, poor handling by the editor. Waste my time. Paper too good for their journal. as stated ("within 24 hours") we got an editorial reject claiming the lack of interest for a broad audience. Referee reports are interesting and constructive. Extremely efficient. Two weeks for R&R. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied even though I got a fast rejection. Editor suggests trying different journal. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. It just decided not to believe the empirical analysis. The referee seems like a first year PhD student who struggled with the notion of left tails. Quickly accepted after the revisions were completed. Was a longshot. We were asked to collect additional data for our existing experimental treatments to increase our statistical power. Pleasant experience. Referee makes a factually inaccurate claim about previous research, and misinterprets interaction terms. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. Desk rejected after a week with no comments. The worst experience I ever had in over 20 years. Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. Chat (0) Conferences. Overall, bad experience. Over 8 weeks for a desk reject due to poor fit for journal. Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. The editor didn't bother to read through the lines of my responses to his previous reports to see how incompetent the referee is, or to look at the big picture and account also for the reports of other referees who wrote much more competent reports and had recommended acceptance several rounds earlier. It is definitely not worth the long wait! But then, it took 20 weeks until we got the acceptance. Poorly managed editorial process. Editor does not even both to check referee letter. We regularly reject without referees the majority of all papers submitted to the QJE. Very quick response. UCLA Economics. The referee reports were also awful. One fairly high-quality report, one not-so good. Placement Administrator: Stephanie Burbank 650-725-6198 sburbank@stanford.edu. Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. Quite useful to provide further extensions, Fast processing and three excellent referees that helped to substantially improved the paper. Pretty clear that whoever desk rejected didn't even read (or couldn't understand) the paper. one ok report, one very hostile. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. "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.". The reviewer was excellent, made the paper much better with his/her comments. Referee #1 wrote 1 sentence saying to submit it to AER. Suggested Ecological Economics. 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". Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow. 2nd very short and useless, referee probably spent 10 mins on it. Very low process. Referee reports were lenthy and very useful. Either way, unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. I wish we had drawn a different editor. The revision review was quite fast too. In December 2016 we managed to get a reply from the managing editor with the same story, that the decision was a matter of days. Desk rejected within 7 days. Contribution not general enough suggests Review of Economics and Statistics. A shame the editor sided with the second. the referee report adds nothing, and the editor rejects based on the meaningless report. AE editor rejects a paper that passed the desk at much better journals. Hellwig rejected, suggested 2nd tier journal such as ET. Six weeks for a desk reject with no reasons offered, Under editor's evaluation for almost 2 months. Referee report transformed the paper significantly. One report of 10 lines with one minor comment and the other one, longer but with also minor comments. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. Rather pleasant experience. Suggested field journal. Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Economics of Food Consumption and Distribution. So there is zero feedback. The other referee recommended revision. Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. One ref suggested I send it to JPE before trying places like EJ or ReStat. The other referee was of low quality. 1 very good referee reports, 1 mediocre, editor was nice. The paper was accepted after I incorporated all suggestions in R&R. But written by big shots. 1 good Referee and good Editor. We got referee rejection in 2.5 months: 2 referees, one favours RR, other rejects. Editor didn't even read the paper and rejected it. Very fast. Good comments, helped improve the paper. Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. Actually a nice experience. The best rejection letter ever received. DE claims to have too large acceptance rate. Submitted to conference edition. Both referees really spent time on the paper and gave lots of suggestions.So did the editor. Spent a week rewriting the paper according to requests of the editor ("put figures in the end of the paper" and such), then got a desk reject. Fast editors. Very efficient process. Only have issues with one of the reviewers. 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. ), Vienna University of Economics and Business, Ceccarelli (Zurich/Maastricht), Pitkjrvi (Aalto), Assistant Professor in Labor, Migration, and Racial Capitalism, Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario), Gallant (Toronto), Sullivan (Yale), Cui (UPenn), Choi (Wisconsin-Madison), Kahou (UBC), Hentall-MacCuish (UCL), Babalievsky (minnesota), Moszkowski (Harvard), Hong (Wisconsin-Madison), Pan (UT Austin), McCrary (UPenn), Gutierrez (University of Chicago), Kwon (Cornell), Zillessen (Oxford), Ba (UPenn), Assistant, Advanced Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor of Economics, E0 -- General F3 -- International Finance F4 -- Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Fin. Three high quality referee reports. This journal is a joke. Please add AERi to the combo box. 3 weeks. Assistant Professor of Economics Columbia University Visiting Research Associate (2022-23) BFI at the University of Chicago Research Network Affiliate CESifo Network Links: Cognition and Decision Lab DRIPs Curriculum Vitae Google Scholar Contact: ha2475@columbia.edu . Desk rejected in 14 days, just long enough to get hopes up, with boilerplate "not general interest.". The editor simply did not read the paper, since he presented no specific comment whatsoever about it, nor any recommendation. No comment from the editor, 1 referee report by an idiot that just filled three pages with garbage to look like a better referee; other report was better but still not nearly as smart as QJE referees. Two very good referee reports. It would be a positive experience if submission were free. Sometimes Batten took a long time to make a decision after the reviews were completed, but he was fair. Then again, it only took a couple of weeks to get the rejection. 1 positive and 1 negative report. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. Three months for an "out of scope" decision. Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Editor not helpful at all. Recommended. The referee cannot fully understand the model. Ended up being a better paper. a positive experience, all in all. Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. accepted immediately after minor revision. Very efficient process. Still, refreshing for honesty. Fast review but very difficult comments. Referee misread the paper, and hammered us on points that we were not making. Editor read the paper and deskrejected in less than a week. your paper, after some updating to reflect the recent complementary literature, would be more appropriate for a more specialized journal. Horrible. Two useful reports. One referee, although clearly in favour of publication, asked a good deal of revisions and it took us 4 motnhs to respond so most of the delay may have been our fault. Mostly decent reports raising fair points, OK experience. The editor had read the paper and provided guidance. Desk reject within 14 hours(!!!). 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. I waited fora long time only to be rejected with a response NOT A GOOD FIT. High quality editing. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. Very quick handeling, decent reports. Third report seemed written by a sage speaking in amharic, most statements were elliptical in nature, and we were left wondering what the referee's point had been. 100 days for 2 useless reports showing lack of understanding of whats going on in the paper, Nice and quick, but bad experience. Never would have won that person over. Good experience, even my paper was rejected. They raised concerns that very literally addressed in section heads. Very fast and fair process, despite the negative outcome. "The empirical econometric novelty of the paper is not substantial enough ", Desk rejection within five days / Poor allocation of coordinating editor (microeconometrician for a time series paper), Quick desk rejection after manuscript ID was assigned. Good experience, worth the 100$ :). The latex formatting at the end was the most painful part. Reasonable referee report. One very good, detailed, and positive report. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. Avoid at all costs.. Fair and quick process. 5 months for one low-quality referee report. very good comments. after more than 3 months still "with editor". Desk rejected in 2 weeks. Editor does not made any comment, probably has not read the paper at all. Most efficient experience with journals ever! Deadline: 2023-03-06. Editor told us to what extent the comment should be addressed. Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. Terrible experience. Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper. Two entirely reasonable reports. Interviewing at the ASSA meetings. relatively fast process and referee helped to improve the papers. Will never submit there again. Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Two referee reports, one good and constructive and the other so-so. no negative comments, just say that the contribution is not big enough for Econometrica, which is completely understandable. Two excellent referee reports. Both referees caught the major issue in the paper and offered great suggestions for moving forward. The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. At this point, the editor asked us to review the abstract and the highlights. Generic rejection. A forum for economists to discuss economics, economics jobs, conferences, journals and more. Very fast, and really high-quality referee reports, plus the AE's feedback. Fairly long wait though. Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit. 2 fairly helpful reports. Other referee didn't have a clue. Baltagi desk rejected it in 2 days for being lack of novelty. Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. Editor guidance also helpful. good reports. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. Response was less than two months from submission -- super quick. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Great experience - referee and editor very helpful. Good process. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). Never deal with stupid journal anymore. Job Market. Very unprofessional. One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor.