Memorial Day Parade 2021 Near Me, Articles E

Great comments from editors and referees. Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. Bad experience overall, although the reports came quickly. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. paper proposed theory that is quite a substantial departure, so i appreciate the editor's willing to take it on. Less than two weeks from submission to editorial decision. But written by big shots. Letter gives no mention of reasons for rejection and even unclear on paper's final status. We believe this policy serves contributors who are saved months of unnecessary delays. suggest some field journals. 1 R&R round. desk reject after three months editor claimed they did not publish papers on this topic but they bogh b, actually submitted in 2017; desk rejection after 1 week; short and friendly answer of editor; however inconclusive, editoral. Would submit again. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy, Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Close callEditor gave the benefit-of-a-doubt and requested revisions, one good referee, the other not very good, helpful editor, overall, pretty smooth process (always easier to say when the paper ends up being published). Nice reports that improve the quality and readability of the paper. only one report (quite helpful). Generic rejection. desk rejection because it is not a good fit and i am asked to send it to an economic journal --- while i mainly discussed with a very nice sociologist when writing this paper. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting Decision based on 1 one-paragraph review that didn't refer to anything specific in the paper. Less than 2 months for the decision with 2 reports, which is very quick. The editor also read the paper and gave very good comments and suggestions. Two reports negative and one positive, editor chooses to reject. He requested that we sent him a reminder after a week. Copied and pasted the comments, some of which were not even relevant for the current version of the the paper. No substantive comments about the content of the paper at all. Two of them suggested a possible solution. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Resubmitted after 3+ months of work, but replies to referees went lost and paper got rejected. 1 great, 1 so so, 1 absolutely trash (the referee only argued on the reliability of the benchmark case, which is a well established result in the literature!!!). Quick (10 days), but useless. May 2019 - Post-doc, Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at Virginia Tech Carilion, Roanoke, VA. Spring 2020 - Nanjing Audit University, Gulou, Nanjing, China. Extremely fast and helpful. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". moderately helpful but whole process took too long. 2 positive. One referee was extremely favourable, the other's comments were needlessly rude and completely hostile. Rejected as "Given the poor quality of provincial GDP statistics, CER has decided not to publish papers based on provincial GDP data for now until the true data series at the provincial level are reconstructed" but they are still publishing with this data see for instance Lv, Liu, and Li 2020 Fiscal incentives, competition, and investment in China. Nice rejection letter. Seems largely like the referee just didn't like it and the editor wanted there to be more significant results (publication bias at its best). Very bad experience. Desk accept? Less than 3 weeks for the first responses (major R&R) then accepted in less than a week. Two weeks to desk reject. Editor does not even both to check referee letter. Overall a very nice experience. Good experience, strong feedback. Unprofessional letters, one full of typo and pushed to a no-way-working direction; the other simply was wrong on his/her main comment. First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. After 7 months at the journal, I get one extremely low quality referee report. Editor provided detailed advice throughout the entire revision process. SVAT is a full service firm in the areas of bookkeeping, accounting, tax and small . First referee constructive and positive. Super fast and clear feedback. Too narrow-minded editor. Editor was polite. Not a r, Contribution: Single country Sample and OLS production, International Review of Law and Economics, very helpful comments which improved the quality of the paper; time between resubmit and acceptance: 6 days! Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. Referee reports were quite helpful in refining the paper. Very useful comments. Referee comments show that it could be an RR but the editor rejected. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. WBER changes editor and the new editor (Pavcnik) reject the paper. Accepted w/o further revision 18 days after resubmit. Constructive referee report. One referee kept claiming one thing was wrong. Job Market | MIT Economics One ref gave R&R; the other two were rejections for not being of sufficient interest for AEJM. 1 positive but short & useless, 1 incompetent negative who didn't even understand the historical topic. Very good reports, very effective handling of the editor. Extremely efficient. Two very poor referee reports. One useful report out of three. Very bad reports. Long wait, decision was communicated with a delay of 3 months after reports had been received. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! Will submit here again. Took 6 weeks. But I understand it may not have been a good fit. He clearly did not read the paper and wrote a pretty much standard rejection that had nothing to do with the paper. Two high quality reports. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. Candidate in Management. will definitely try it again next time. One magnificient + one so-so ref report. 1 positive and 1 negative report - Editor rejected. I suspect whether Penny Goldberg is competent. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. I love this journal. 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. One ref report with extremely constructive criticisms. In a word, this is not a serious journal. overall v good experience. Totally automated review process; one referee carps even with demonstrably invalid reason and you have no right even to contact the editor. Great experience. All the referees understood what I did in great detail. The Editor was quite polite. Went from reject/resubmit to revise resubmit 1, revise resubmit 2, finally accepted. It is a disgrace to the profession reflects poorly on the journal. All three schools are exceptional but UChicago is particularly strong in Econ as well as other core subjects such as polisci and philosophy. Replied within a week but editor clearly read the paper and identified main points which, however, seemed not important to him to warrant publication in RES. Only quibble is one referee got stuck on a (not applicable) approach and wouldn't let go. Desk rejected within a week, no fee refunds. Very easy suggested an appropriate transfer and levied the submission fees, with editor providing quite helpful comments. So not good but frankly much better than other journals. Each report was one small paragraph long. The Editor suggested a more traditional public finance journal. 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. one nasty and rudely written report with inaccuracies as well, one cited lack of fit. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. Only have issues with one of the reviewers. Two entirely reasonable reports. Rejected but with excellent reports. Overall, fair process. Valid rejection. waiting 19 months as of today, sent 3 reminfers, Hall nor anybody else from the journal havent responded so far to any of my emails. I wish we had drawn a different editor. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. Very, very disappointed! Incredibly insulting rejection that made it clear the referee had not read past the first 2 pages of the paper. Some good comments from reviewers, but all focused on marginal issues. Editor actually read the paper. Editor obviously read the paper and had great comments. I do not think that the referee understood my paper. Very fast process but no comment from the Associate Editor. "We are hesitant to publish purely empirical papers" comment could have been boilerplate but seemed uninformative, Exceptionally quick turnaround times. 5 months for one low-quality referee report. Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. Provided very useful comments. The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress. The other reviewer I suspect of being a graduate student with not so good comments. Emailed journal to withdraw submission after 14 months. Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. Two years later still waiting for referee reports. Hard to believe. Resulted in much better paper. The referee was clearly trying to protect his own paper on a related topic; half of the bullet points referred to that paper. One referee not only did not read the paper but criticized something the paper does not do at all! Good experience, even my paper was rejected. Overall smooth process. Grossbard handled the paper and accepted conditional on rewrite around her useless and poorly cited old work. Reasonable comments from referees. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. The rejection was fair but the referee report uninformative and boilerplate. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience. R&R in two months. One very good review, two quite missed points. Five weeks "with editor" to a boilerplate desk reject, then they asked me to applaud them for a "speedy decision.". One very low quality and unfriendly report. Chat (0) Conferences. Good reports. This is why our profession sucks.