But written by big shots. Wasted 17 months. Very efficient editorial process by Ken West. by Tatonnement Oct 1, 2008 18:58:14 GMT -5: Legend. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Two referee reports. Ref reports were okay. Liked the paper but contribution too small. All comments seem easy to answer. Only one semi-informative report. Outrageously poor process. Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. Editor referred to a report by a reviewer received by phone. My paper was much of empirical. Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. Cantillon is not a good editor. One low quality (taste-based) referee report. The referee seems like a first year PhD student who struggled with the notion of left tails. After about 1 year of wait, the editor decided to reject the submission on the basis of 1 report (2 referees did not respond) that contained only 2-3 lines that already work was done on the topic (although appreciating the empirical analysis). Editor accepted the paper after we made some modifications recommended by the referee. The paper was triying to test unit roots on capacity utilisation for a cross-section of countries to test some macro models; so it did stuff that even a Master's can understand. Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. AER Insights: Generic rejection without any thought or suggestion. Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. Ok, experience if it wouldnt be for the 11 months. It seems they rushed to reject it. RR time was only 2 weeks, no bullshit nitpicking. One referee gave lots of great comments, while the other referee was pretty much useless. Desk after 1 day from Katz, very polite and parsing of the paper, although not GI. I had notice that it was sent to reviewers in. Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. However, I had issues with production, they uploaded the wrong version of my paper etc, and it looked like it wasn't even copy edited. Editor accepted it. (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint). two weeks. R&R, took forever, reports mentioned but not provided, not responsive to emails. Stay away! Economist 64dd. After 10 months, my manuscript was still listed as "awaiting referee assignment", and no one at the journal would respond to my e-mails about the paper, so I withdrew it. Pretty bad experience. He clearly outlined the major flaws and decided to desk-reject it. Rather short reports for waiting 6 months. Lastly withdrew for good after another six months. Showed as "awaiting editor assignment" for three months, then a desk reject. A good referee report and very efficient editor. I wish we had drawn a different editor. Desk reject after 2 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? Helpful comments from referees and relatively fast. Editor should know better. After resubmitting, accepted in 2 weeks without going to referees. Job Market Candidates 2022-23 | Economics - Boston University Instead, the reviewer says you did not cite a literature that is totally beside the point, the main concept of your paper is not mentioned not even once in that literature. Two very good reports, one probably written by the editor. Amazing efficiency. The editor is not related to my field, but also decided not to get an expert's opinion. As a theoretical contribution, it is not sufficient for Economics Letters. Inquired about my submission after 7 months, got answer that revision time "totally depends on the reviewers". Very slow and the reason for rejection was not good enough. The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made. 2 months after first submission of manuscript. Submitting to JME first was really worth it. Handled by the new co-editor. One very good referee report, based on which the paper is improved significantly. Horrible experience. Both referees have good understanding of the topic. Update to previous pending post. Two good referee reports though the review process is A bit slow. I was pleased with the experience because I've never made this far with them. Fast R&R with reasonable reports and encouraging editor letter. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. Referee reports were of high quality. Reports were not fair but at least fast response. Three very constructive referee reports that help improving the quality of the paper. The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! Desk rejected in 6 days with no explanation. Thorough referee reports with substantive comments. Very efficient. Resubmitted and the editor rejected the paper on the basis of concerns that were never raised before in the process (and are incorrect IMHO). 6 months for useless reports. Helpful reports in general. After 10 months waiting, I had a revise and resubmit decision. Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. Very fast decisions. To view archived listings in this job market cycle that are now inactive, check this box View listings from the previous (August 1, 2022 - January 31, 2023) JOE cycle. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. Rejected within 24hrs by Katz. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. Very fast process. Not a great experience! It's quick, but the reports are really bad and unhelpful. BTW if one of the referee goes for RR, I would have to wait for a third referee report (lucky me?). Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. Pleasantly surprised by the quality of referee report. Economics Job Market Rumors. Awful experience. One positive and one negative report. One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. Very good experience. Reasonable comments from the referee, extremely fast and efficient process. Reviewers did not understand anything. One very good referee report, one useless one. Actually took nearly 15 months. Almost happy. Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. Pointed out the problems in the model and also admitted that its difficult to take care of all those problems. Not signed by any specific editor, so not even sure who handled the manuscript. Editor did not intervene and kept hiding throughout. It took 6 months a referee to look at the paper and decide that it does not make enough contribution to be published in this journal (very smart idea). 6 months to first response, then a two sentence ref report, one sentence of which was clarified extremely quickly and one that entailed a ton of extra work. Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. The third was R&R, and was more substantive. Very happy with experience so far. I am not sure the referee knows the topic area well enough. Tried to block publication in the second round as well but editor overrode. Very poor referee reports. Garbage. Standard rejection letter. moderately helpful but whole process took too long. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. Apparently is unaware of large literature in multiple fields to which topic pertains. Yes, he can ask for odd things. Editor rejected based on that. We resubmitted to AEPP and the paper received minor revisions after the second R&R. Very good experience. Desk rejected in two weeks. No comments about the paper itself. My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. I really appreciated the clarity the editor provided in helping to navigate the referee reports. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. Cool editor. The referee reports were good. Referees' comments were useful. good reports; excellent editor who acts like an additional referee. Very efficient process with explicit timeline. Modifications responded mainly to the good report. "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". Too slow. 3 weeks for a desk reject. Some reasons given. Rejection based on fit. The editor (Sushanta Mallick) rejected it by 'just by looking at the descriptive statistics' (the original words from the decision letter). Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. Good helpful report asking for few corrections. The submission and revision process was great and timely. Would not bother again. Unhappy with the outcome of course, but pleased with the process and the handling. Horrible experience. After revise and resubmit, was rejected, Next year, similar article appeared in the journal authored by one of the associate editors. instantaneous rejection, however, without any comments, 5 Weeks for a desk reject without comments. At least they were fast. One referee did read the paper, the other responded with odd arguments. Very kind letter from the editor. Pathetic referee reports. J.E. one so-so report and one excellent report, Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics. Got most thorough, informed, and useful referee reports in 5 years. Desk rejected in 2 days. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. Contribution was an application of a specific method to an interesting case, referees made it a methodical paper by asking for a series of many different methods, As they claim to be able to give a first response within 8 weeks, I was a bit disappointed to recive it after 6 months. This is expected as I am not part of the editor's inner circle. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. Response time was decent. Suggest field journal. placement@econ.ucla.edu. Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. Finally very well handled by the editor. 3 polite reports say it is interesting but too simple for aer. 3 week desk reject. Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). Avoid him. Slightly more informative than a desk rejection. Ref rejected in 3 weeks. Fair referee reports, ref. The referees made good points. Fast desk reject, no substantial comments. Currently under R&R at a journal with the same ranking. A reviewer gave some thoughtful comments. One very good report, the other OK. Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines). Both reports are not really useful. One report was very useful. Two reports were reasonable and one report was very low quality. Fair referee reports, but I had to wait pretty long. Absolutely pathetic. Another 2 months and a second round of very minor revisions. Extensive delay for referee reports apparently due to unresponsive referee. Good experience. Very useful comments. The referee reports were serious and offered some good suggestions, although one of the referees appeared not to understand the theoretical model used in the paper. Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. Would try again. 14 days. relatively high quality referee reports, huge amount of work needed to format the paper according to the editorial guidelines as they receive little typesetting support from publisher. Anyway, the editor letter mentiones out of scope, and blaims it on our lack of (maybe interest in ?) Accepted as it is. happy with outcome. Not general interest enough. Big lie. Katz very thoughtful and helpful editor letter. Very, very disappointed. Appreciate the quick turnaround. Then took about 14 months to be come out in print. Editor suggested alternative outlets. Long time to edit and format after acceptance. The editor read the paper carefully and made helpful comments. never submit to this journal again. 3 months to R&R; 2 weeks for second round; 1 week for final acceptance. High quality reports and useful comments from the editor. Unfair letter from Emi N. Great letters from four referees and three of them are very positive! Excellent reports. Larry suggested to send it to field journal. Referees rejected. Paper was a letter. The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. NEVER submit there if you are pre-tenured. Fast. This was after a 6 month wait and emails to the editor to follow up. "Thank you for your paper.
How Long To Cook Brownies In A 8x11 Pan,
Whitbread Privilege Card Activation,
How To Survive A Sexless Marriage Without Cheating,
Msf Red Guardian Iso 8,
Articles E