2 rounds (1 major R and 1 minor R), one report each time, very fast acceptance after minor R round (less than a month), Fast and to the point reports with reasonable requests for r&r. Agreed that this journal is a joke. After revision, paper accepted in a week. Poor referee reports. Job Market Paper: Local Polynomial Estimation of Time-Varying Parameters in GMM. Clearly he had read the paper. Same referee takes about half an hour to conclude the math is wrong, yet takes 5 months to submit his report. 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) My paper was much of empirical. Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it. The Referee Report was very helpful and quite positive. One paragraph that dismissed four years of work. Great comments from editors and referees. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!! No specfic comment on the paper. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Great experience; precise and informed referee report; 1st round for major improvements, 2nd round pretty much converged to acceptance. Terrible referee report referee made contradictory statements and econometric mistakes in report. Not very useful comments from any of them. The third was R&R, and was more substantive. Accepted without need for further revisions. But written by big shots. got the impression that the reviewer did not read the paper and decided to dispute the review, the dispute process took slightly more than 1 month and the new reviewer sided with the old reviewer. Co-editor felt nothing "wrong" with paper but does not made enough of a contribution to warrant publication. Editor delayed a lot. Good report and conditionally accepted with minor revisions. Pretty stupid rationale based on lack of methodological innovation. Not sure whether to classify this as a desk or referee reject. The paragraph/comment not constructive. Overall- great experience. Two month later it is rejected and get two referee reports (fair enough there). editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". Quick desk rejection; field journals recommende, Rejected within one week, but useful comments and advice given by editor, Uhlig, justified decison with kind and informed letter from the editor. 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) Efficient process and fast decision. Good report from reviewers. One good referree report, one positive but unhelpful, one negative and entirely useless. Surprisingly efficient process given the other comments here on the journal. I submitted two papers and both took a very long time to get referee comments from and the sets of referee comments read like they were written by undergraduate students. Desk reject in a few days. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. Under one month for one very brief report saying not good enough for the journal and a completely indecipherable AE report. Many, many factual errors about the paper. Hence, terrible. Ref report definitely helpful. Reports detailed and helpful. Detailed comments. A bit slow, but good comments by the referee. Between two referee reports and two conference discussions, I have some things to consider for future submission. KS rejected based on AE's brief report; AE comments somewhat useful but a tad unfair (main criticism applies to many papers publ. Very pleasant experience. In case of desk rejection, they should return the submission fee. Two sloppy reports, one useful. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. One very good set of comments. Overall a good experience! RR time was only 2 weeks, no bullshit nitpicking. Kneller is a very good editor, the experience has been very good. My first submission in AE and it is the best experience ever. The editor provided one. One good referee report. 84 W Santa Clara Street, Suite 770, San Jose, CA 95113. Referee told to write another paper instead. Rejection based on technical point, which could be fixed withing 2 weeks. Very slow and no much reason given for desk rejection. Signaling. Do not offer any innovative technique. Average turnaround time was rather long for AEJ standards. Improved the paper significantly. One of the referees helped me structure the paper nicely. Good referee report and very efficient editor. Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud. Not enough of a contribution for JPE, suggested AEJs. Should be careful to submit. It was almost like somebody pickpocketed and got my $600, had to pay $100 instead of the usual submission fee. ", Took two months to desk reject, although initial email assured of a very short response time for desk rejecttions, Desk rejected because of formatting issue but invited to resubmit; took a few days for desk rejectioin. I dont care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. Received first reply after 7 weeks. Editor suggested top field, decided not to send to referrees due to "narrowness of topic." Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California (USA) Extremely valuable referee reports and advices from the editor. Process seemed very fair. Desk rejection with no comments in 3 weeks. Avoid at all costs.. After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected. Poor. The main sugguestion is to come up with a theoretical model and erase half of the work done. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO) Helpful comments from the editor. Editor was very reasonable. And because he could not find theoretical contributions. Full of informative/wrong comments. The acceptance came quickly after the second round of review. Reasonable motivations for desk rejection provided, Fast desk rejection, poor targeting on my part, desk reject but with useful feedback from AE. Editor and co-editor are extremely nice and supportive. Flores, Jairo. Desk reject in 7 days. Quite upsetting. Both reports very helpful, AE comments showed that he did not understand the paper. Referees mixed. Garbage. Total 6 months. High Quality Editing. First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. A black bitch barks at East Europe. ref report had useful but not overly comprehensive suggestions. So there is zero feedback. Highly recommended. Accepted after 3 R&R. Waited 6 months for one report, from which it was clear that the referee hadn't even read the paper properly. Very Fast. Under two month for two reports. Less than two weeks from submission to editorial decision. Ok experience. Whole process super quick. Fast. High quality, detailed referee reports, which substantially improved the paper. 50% of Americans believe US should support Ukraine 'as long as it takes After 10 months waiting, I had a revise and resubmit decision. 2 minutes passed between receiving editor name an receiving desk rejection. Much quicker response than suggestsed. he clearly read the paper. Harsh critical comments from the editor, a useful report from the referee. Pleasant experience overall. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. Absolutely disappointed by extremely poor response from the editor (Horioka). A second round of minor revision was requested. (310) 206-1413. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Editor gave me chance to convince other referee. Most dishonest rejection. Took about two weeks. Proved to be quite true. One nasty and not helpful review, but two others were very constructive. Job Market Candidates 2022-23 | Economics - Boston University Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda. but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. This decision is not in any sense a negative comment on the quality of the paper. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. nice experience. About 3 weeks turnaround. Excellent reports. Only one report. Nice experience, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. Weak editor. 5 days. Worst experience so far. Smooth process. Ok, experience if it wouldnt be for the 11 months. Job Market Candidates 2022 - New York University The site, commonly known as econjobrumors.com (its full name is Economics Job Market Rumors), began as a place for economists to exchange gossip about who is hiring and being hired in the . This post is a continuous work in . One is OK, other one is exteremly negative. Desk rejected after more than 5 months, avoid, International Review of Applied Economics, receive first response within 2 weeks. Polite / nice email from Editor. I knew I shot too high. Economics Job Market Rumors - Forum for Economists Received 2 very nice and 1 okay-ish report. Wide disagreement among reviewers about paper, but one very helpful report. Didn't fit journal aims well enough - very courteous rejection with suggestions on where to try next, the issue did not fit no justifications. Reason cited: weak paper. Very fast process, that is why I submitted to the journal. Clearly no effort was put into it. Many thanks to the editor for most constructive comments. The status are always the same "under review". Second was uninformative. Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. Editor obviously read the paper. Finance Job Rumors (482,056) General Economics Job Market Discussion (727,619) Micro Job Rumors (14,915) Macro Job Rumors (9,755) European Job Market (100,185) China Job Market (102,275) Industry Rumors (39,946) Burak Uras (Tilburg AP), Caitlin Hegarty (Michigan), Diana Sverdlin Lisker (MIT), Suzanna Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Garima Sharma (MIT), Ruozi Song (USC), Heitor Sandes Pellegrina (NYU Abu Dhabi), Juanma Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Katherine Stapleton (WB/Oxford), Dario Tortarolo (Berkeley), Jonah Rexer (Wharton), Anna Vitali (UCL), Livia Alfonsi (Berkeley), Binta Zahra Diop (Oxford), Shafaat Yar Khan (WB/Rochester), Althoff (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Vaidya (Northwestern), Chan (Stanford), Bodere (NYU), Pernoud (Stanford), Kang (Stanford GSB), Minni (LSE), Otero (Berkeley), Bodere (NYU), Vergara (Berkeley), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Carry (CREST), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Ospital (UCLA), Lanzani (MIT), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Kennedy (Berkeley), Souchier (Stanford). On the downside, the time between each of the two rounds of R&R was longish. 6 weeks. 48 hour DR, no particular comments from Shleifer except interesting paper, suggest AEJ:applied. Overall, good experience with IREF. Great experience. Good reviews by the referee and the AE. There's this cute girl who plays guitar very badly in just her bra on YouTube, Hyatt Hotels, Data Scientist- posted one week ago, 982 applicants, Young men reveal why so many of them are single: Dates feel more like job inter, A day in the life of childless single broette, "Just get an industry job" - It's not that simple. The reports were very useful and the referees seemed to have given the paper a very careful reading. Perhaps we can call JABO an experimental journal now. 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. Good reports. 2 reports and 2 rounds. Miserable. The other negative and low-quality. I felt as if 65$ has evaporated from my pocket. Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. One extremely useful and one useless report. Editor also read the paper and took the call - explained that the paper was better suited at a good field journal given referee assessments of contribution to literature. Editor desk rejected stating that paper (which was on the program of Top 3 conferences etc.) Good experience. Good communication and seemed very efficient. 2.5 months review. One very good report, 6 pages long. Reject and resubmit although both referees and AE advised revision. 1 very useful report and associate editor comments. Third round (acceptance) took 2 weeks. Sounds fair. Referees didnt understand shape of indifference curves, confused standard errors for standard deviations, ignored figures in main text while misinterpreting figures from the appendix. Never submit again. Extremely helpful comments that significantly improved the paper in the end. One very good report, one OK. One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal.
Troop B Canaan, Ct Police Blotter, Blazers Summer League Roster, Articles E