Very good experience: I wish all my rejected submissions were as fast and polite. Good experience as far as rejections go. Awful experience. Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. 1 short report (but good points) and 1 very long report. 1 paragraph of superficial non-descriptive comments from each ref, One week to desk reject with no comment at all. Very efficient. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. Overall experience is horrible. Surprisingly efficient process given the other comments here on the journal. One good report, one completely useless with only superficial, general remarks. Good experience. 3 constructive and useful reports. Nice editor. Standard experience with the JHR. Editor handled the paper well. Very efficient and fast. The editor picked a new (hostile) referee in the 2nd round. Two referee reports, each was half a page with very general comments about the lack of contribution to a general readership. A good referee report and very efficient editor. Very constructive and useful for revisions. The latter may be fine but it is clear that the referee did not read the paper very carefully. The paper was accepted after one round of submission. Efficient process, stuck to advertised timings. Initial review was slow but there was an editor change that may have contributed to this. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. Don't submit here. 5 weeks for a desk reject. After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. The editor decided to reject, I am not in the club. Referee says R&R, but editor decides to reject outright. Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. Fair process. Referee reject after more than a year. One very good report, another one heavily biased against methodology, yet helpful. Editor provided a letter with comments. Very good referees. Very quick process. Probably I was a bit lucky the 2 referees liked the idea of teh paper sicne ti was a bit sort and basically asked me to do some mreo stuff. Desk rejected the next day. paper rejected after one round of R&R due to extremely negative attitude of the one referee. Multiple inquiries with a response: "once the reviews are completed, the editor will make a decision". PhD Program Administrator: Mirtha Cabello, cabello@bu.edu, (617) 353-4454. Serious referee report, but without any helpful particular suggestion. Received two detailed reports, which were reasonably useful. Editor read paper and gave good comments, but ultimately rejected. good referee reports (1 yes, 2 no). Two reviewers recommended rejection. Excellent comments from MN, good experience for a desk rejection. Not even a single remotely useful comment. For a short paper, it took quite a longtime for deskreject without a single sentence relating to the paper. Editor handled it well. "not enough contribution". Reports were not very helpful. Unfair decision. Actually took nearly 15 months. 2 pretty decent referee reports.Of course one said "the quality of the model and empirical evidence is below the standards for a journal like the QJE. Terrible experience. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. Contribution too small. AE didn't provide comments which is odd. quick and clear communication with editor. Anti-intellectual reasoning. Long time to first response, given 3 months for a lengthy (single) report, but resubmitted and was accepted in like 3 hours. 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 . all in all, a costly but friendly and competent experience. The second round of review only took 3 weeks. Only got form letter. Two good referee reports, useful comments, theory; 2 decent referee reports and 1 suggestive letter from an editor. Finance Job Rumors (489,506) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,795) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,021) China Job Market (103,531) Industry Rumors (40,351) The second time I was told that my results were "not surprising". We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. Pretty efficient turnaround. Nothing more frustrating than paying to submit a paper that was desk rejected after 2 months with no reason given for rejection "I find the overall contribution too small to justify publication in AEJ". No refund. Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. Will submit there in the future. Editor makes no attempt to reconcile conflicting reports or, One good referee report. Very efficient process. 2 students with mostly useless comments. Extremely bad experience with this journal. Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. The law scholar did not like technical thing but I just used. Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. Two reports with mixed view. Not sure what the editor(s) are doing at this journal but whatever it is, it is not quality overseeing and editing of papers. It seems they rushed to reject it. The editor wrote the 2nd report. 100 days for 2 useless reports showing lack of understanding of whats going on in the paper, Nice and quick, but bad experience. Wouldn't submit here again. Referee had positive comments and suggested revise and resubmit, but editor rejected it. Relatively high submission fee. Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. had no economic relevance and was not worth being sent out to a referee. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. Rejected after 2 weeks. Baltagi desk rejected it in 2 days for being lack of novelty. To avoid. Efficient process. 5 days. useless reports. The International Review of Law and Economics has recently published the article "Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War" by J. Desk rejection came in 10 days. The rejection came with a useless referee report. R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. Currently in R&R. accepted immediately after minor revision. It took 18 months after first revision. Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). Desk-rejected in 3 days. I will never submit to this journal. Job Market - Economics I was surprised these two letters resulted in the overall reject. things slowed down because of covid. Less than 3 weeks for the first responses (major R&R) then accepted in less than a week. Very quick rejection, but I received a nice response from one of the co-editors. Reports detailed and helpful. the editor was helpful and nice though. Despite being so tough, all comments were fair and refs wrote great reports that dramatically improved the paper. One told me I should have use the methodology introduced by XPTO et al, which was the one I used and cited Only worthy comment was the editors who stated (and rightly so) that though our model statistically improved forecasts. Not helpful in any way. Very efficient, good reports. Are you seriously so focusing on submission fees instead of research itself? Desk reject in a week. Referee reports were very brief and contained little in the way of substantive comments. Desk reject in 1 week. Bad experience waiting for and ultimately receiving two relatively useless reviews for a comment/note (paper < 10 pages including title/abstract page, references, and tables). 18 days, no indication that either adstract or paper was read. Was pleased with the process, besides the rejection. It details the following: Preparing to go on the job market. 9 month for two reports. Failed to notify me of rejection. One referee read the paper line by line and gave constructive comments. Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. Accepted after revision within 1 month. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. One weak report, one reviewer that clearly did not read the paper but did not like what he claimed we did and suggested we do other things which did make much less sense and one reviewer that gave comments that were pretty easy to address. Poor / no justification for decision. Professional co-editor and referee. Clearly a club journal. Desk rejected in two weeks. Editor said he appreciated the previous paper but seemed to reject this one (which is probably better) since it fits in with a similar literature. Form letter. Journal response was quick. It would be a positive experience if submission were free. Very useful referee reports. The most underutilized channel is Paid Search. Answer (1 of 10): I would highly recommend UChicago for you. Aina (Zurich), Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA), Conte (U Bologna / UAB), Stockler (UAB), Health Economics Labor and Demographic Economics Urban, Rural, Regional, Transportation Economics In, Fan (Stanford), Lepper (Pitt), Mahmood (OSU), Rehbeck (Ohio State AP), Vidart (UConn AP), Liu (Michigan AP), Yoder (Georgia AP), Mathevet (EUI AP), Cox (Yale postdoc), Choi (Princeton), Craig (Yale postdoc), applied microeconomics, econometrics, and/or macroeconomics, Yang (USC) Vidart (UConn AP) Qiu (Penn) Mills (Princeton) Mugnier (CREST), Borusyak (UCL), Ramos (Harvard), Ostriker (MIT), Sharma (MIT), Vitali (UCL), Crews (Chicago), Druckenmiller (RFF), University of California, San Diego (UCSD), Seck (Harvard), Mills (Princeton), Alfonsi (Berkeley ARE), Rivera (Columbia), Idoux (MIT/Wharton AP), Moscona (MIT), Souchier (Stanford), Chen (Stanford GSB), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Vitali (UCL), Ederer (Toulouse), Lanzani (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Miller (Wharton), Vasudevan (Yale SOM), Nimier-David (ENSAE), Pernoud (Stanford), Kwon (HBS), Fleckenstein (Stern), Hampole (Kellogg), Wang (Stanford GSB), Tang (Harvard), Coston (CMU), Singh (MIT), Yong Cai (Northwestern), Yuling Yan (Princeton), Mou (Berkeley), Jahani (Berkeley), Chang (Yale), Moran (Columbia), Uehara (Cornell), Althoff (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Carry (ENSAE), Conlon (Harvard), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Kohlhepp (UCLA), Minni (LSE), Moscona (MIT), Nguyen (MIT), Otero (UC Berkeley), Pernoud (Stanford), Roth (Uni of Cologne), Thereze (Princeton), Vergara (UC Berkeley), Sturm (MIT), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford). Editor mentioned delay is mainly the result of needing to get a second editorial assessment which suggested this paper's arguments are more likely to find a responsive audience in a different journal. Two useful reports (one with detailed but helpful suggestions), good editor. Rejected in 24 hrs, no reason given. Very professionalthe referee reports were fine but rather tough given the quality of the journal, 3 rounds, all comments addressed, rejected because 1 reviewer did not read the last version. Desk reject within 14 hours(!!!). Very good reports. Paper went multiple rounds over 2 years. Very satisfied with the experience. Reviewers seem to be very well acquainted with my research area (health). Good experience. Bunche Hall 8292. Could have desk rejected and saved us all the trouble. One ref gave R&R; the other two were rejections for not being of sufficient interest for AEJM. Editor was really nice. It took 5 months to get a desk reject, with a polite letter from the editor that the paper would be a good fit for a field journal. Each report was less than 600 words long with 3-4 main comments but not in much dept (not even full references included). Desk reject in 1 week. Transfer from another Elsevier journal. We may have been aiming too high. Cantillon is not a good editor. two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. Terrible report. My paper was on Covid and one ref was clearly not an economist, suggesting medical/health indicators, references and logic; impossible to satify I think with economics arguments. Very nice editor. Editor mentioned the wrong econometric model in email making it clear it was not read. Editor rejected without comments. I stopped reading after that). A serious fraud: Fake JF and RFS conditional acceptances, "Leftover women" problem hits US dating market, New "Family Ruptures" AER / NBER is rip-off of obscure paper, Schiraldi (LSE) and Seiler (Stanford) false coauthors of AER publication, Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School, Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO). Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. Depressing experience. Shame on Co-Editor. Fasstest acceptation ever after R&R: 1 day! So if your topic is not within this field, the desk rejection is much more likely. Extremely long wait at this journal for comments. Overall- great experience. Bad referee reports. Mentioned that they do not consider theoretical papers. 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. It seems from this website that this in not uncommon for this journal. Revision accepted after one day. No other comments. Good referee reports. 2 very short reports after waiting 11 months and paying a crazy submission fee. One where the only material comment has a grammatical error that makes understanding it difficult? Economics Job Market Updates / Wiki Job Market - Economics Second referee made some useful suggestions. The other is constructive but not as good. Not surprised to hear that the impact of the journal is going down. After this thrid email, the paper moves up and it takes 11 weeks to get referee rejection (quality fo the two reports: poor, they wont improve my paper). No evidence that the editor read even the abstract. Desk reject within two weeks. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. Referee reports were of high quality. Useful comments from knowledgeable reviewers. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. One referee said "take it", two said "we dislike coauthor, he published something similar in psych journal, do not take". Less than two months for very minor revision request. Editor took two weeks to unconditionally accept. The letter from the editor suggests that he/she did not have a firm grasp of the paper. Took seven weeks to get these reviews, pretty efficient journal. Not very fast but good in overall. Contacted them, told me they will try to send it out to reviewers. Referee comments were pretty minor. Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor. Could have been more lucky with referees, but at least it was very efficient. Larry suggested to send it to field journal. Worst referee report ever with unsubstantiated claims. Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). Insightful and reasonable referee reports. Very helpful comment. 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. Fast turn around with great referee reports that significantly improved the paper. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. And some more nice words. Accepted after 3 R&R. More than 16 weeks!! The least the editor could have done is to assign another editor. the other report is empty (rejection). 2 reviewers, 1 poor, 1 quite demanding and useful. Submitted 4 February, rejected 29 December with 1 ok referee report that had been submitted in May. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. good reports; excellent editor who acts like an additional referee. Tyranny of the single review. Welcome to the EconTrack Job Market Information Board, a service hosted by the AEA. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. 2 weeks to desk reject. [2] [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors . 2 years no reply, then short letter and reject, I would never send there again. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. These rankings consider only the youngest economists registered with RePEc. The status are always the same "under review". moderately helpful but whole process took too long. Horrible experience! KS super smart and constructive feedback. Referees didnt understand shape of indifference curves, confused standard errors for standard deviations, ignored figures in main text while misinterpreting figures from the appendix. One was thoughtful report, pointed to at least one direction we can improve. The editor was fair and provided reasons why the paper was rejected. The editor was good. I'll definetly will submit again. Much better than regular EL. Basically useless, a waste of time. Good reports. The editor VanHoose made some good comments though. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. Disappointing referee: a few useful comments, but mostly low-grade and somewhat hostile. fast response but low quality referee reports, fast and reliable journal. Great judgment. Editor delayed a lot. Overall good experience. Obviously, being turned down after a two-year long process and a very extensive revision is bad for a young author. Very good experience. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Rejected within 4 days with a decent explanation. Desk rejected in less than one month. Excellent and clear communication with editors. Lousy reports showing lack of proper reading. He gave few recommendations. Reject and resubmit. Hello! Zero constructive comments! Maybe the paper did not merit publication in JMCB but that referee report was really ridiculous. Rejected within two weeks. One good report, one bad report. Ex: CDF was derived to construct the likelihood of a discrete choice model, a reviewer writes the author does not use the derived CDF. Boo! Very good experience. After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected. Editor is a insecure joke. Two very useful ref reports in the first round. Costas Meghir responses all submissions. Garbage. While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. Very pleased. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. Editor read the paper and gave helpful feedback. Helpful comments received from reviewers. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper.
