econ job market rumors wiki

Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. There was a second round of ref. Why do Americans obsess over Japan work hours and suicide rates? Extremely valuable referee reports and advices from the editor. The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. Two reviews - one very positive, and one that was clearly from someone outside of the field that was not familiar with the methods or the literature. Helpful and fair referee reports. All other comments were mentioned and addressed in the paper. Would submit again. Excellent editorial service from Bruno Biais. 1 very weak report, 1 very useful, AE's report extremely weak. It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. the referee reports are of good quality, but I think 11 month for a first response is too long, Very quick response. Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. Secondary: Applied Macroeconomics and International Economics. Very good experience, Good experience. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. Editor at least seemed to have given a pretty detailed reading of the paper, but was disappointed with the amount of time it took for a desk rejection. The low-quality report won out Reject with two solid reports. No comments from the unknown handling editor. Editor then agreed. He is the main contact person for employers who have questions about a candidate's vita . Katz rejected in two hours with comments that seemed to be written for some other paper. Editor like the paper but their hands were tied, I guess. Low quality referee reports. Second round took 30 minutes, from submission to acceptance. Seems to be unfit the reviewing editor's preference but the handling editor was kind though. Not general interest enough. Process a bit slow. Desk Reject, No Comment, Horrible Experience- THEY DO NOT REFUND the submission fee. Would try again in the future. Recommended reject because he thought the sample of countries wasn't broad enough (despite it being a paper on a specific set of countries on purpose, as explained in the methodology). Rejection after 3 days. Mess with the submission, as they were changing editors. Candidate Job Market Roster. Paper desk rejected in 4 days. Some of the people at my lower Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. Would submit again. Very good referee reports. (It doesn't seem like a club journal. One of the referee reports was of alarmingly low quality. Took 9 months for acceptance. 10 lines not even sure they read the paper. Editor provided a letter with comments. Editor provided some friendly comments. 6 months to receive half-assed & useless referee reports and request for major revisions. Longish time to first response but good reports and a ref who just loved digging into my equations. Referee really helped me to improve this paper with a great report. Not recommended. Fast and fair. Referee comments greatly improved the paper, editor was awesome. desk with a letter from editor. A journal to avoid. Prof. Sushanta Mallick handles the paper. OK process, but some reports were useless. Ref reports quite useful. The journal is higher than B. Somehow it took a whole year for the referees to write short and horribly useless reports which show they did not even bother to read the introduction. Actually, it was overall positive. Desk-rejected after ten days. Frustrating. I want to express my thankness to a refreee, who provded an exremly high quality report. half a page report. Great experience. Deadline: 2023-03-06. Slow moving. Not submitting again to this journal. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Would submit again. Referee reports were incredibly useful and significantly improved the paper. Harsh critical comments from the editor, a useful report from the referee. The university is also very well-known for its intellectual atmosphere and abundance of creativ. Had 2 tough but fair r&r rounds with 2 reviewers and 1 with the editor. Editor from outside of the field (empirical corporate fin) did not think that my paper (ap theory) is interesting. One very good report, the other average-to-good. Desk rejected by Nigel Rice after almost 2 months, looking at the reason for rejecting the paper I had the feeling the editor did not read the paper. Took 6 weeks. My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. Are you seriously so focusing on submission fees instead of research itself? Suggested field journal. Two solid referee reports. Quick rejection (Canova, 5 days), professional, very acceptable decision. Too long waiting time. 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) Excellent communication with editor. Very efficiently run journal (at least my experience). Weak reports with many assertaions that were simply untrue. One referee not only did not read the paper but criticized something the paper does not do at all! One good report, one bad report. One report very solid and useful, another (two-paragraph one) looks confusing. My impression is that the editor didn't even bother looking at the paper. 1st round 2 1/2 months. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. No response. After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. They just pocketed the submission fee. Very slow process but happy to get accepted. Katz rejected my paper before I was done submitting it; suspect time travel. All queries tough but manageable - only difficulty was having 3 refs say sometimes contradictory things. Well-run journal. 2 weeks. Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. Some fair some unwarranted comments. Two weeks for a desk rejection. Development Economics, Family Economics, Gender Economics, Domestic Violence Durandard, Tho: Kellogg School of Management . Fair report but not anything that couldn't be corrected in R&R. 3 months to R&R; 2 weeks for second round; 1 week for final acceptance. No substantive comments about the content of the paper at all. AE also helpful. two referee reports. Very fast. If? Signaling. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. Mostly generic comments. Worst experience, A very very slow journal. Will not consider again. Fantastic experience (accepted first round), Directly accepted within one month. Desk reject within 1 day. Fast Review process. Basically if you don't make everyone happy on the first round you stand no chance at this journal. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. Associate editors are very professional. If you are an employer who would like to post hiring status information for positions at your institution, please contact EconTrack to register. In reality, the paper is poorly motivated and the link between the model and the anecdotal evidence discussed in the introduction is not clear. If this journal wants to publish high quality papers, it needs to pick someone better than Joerg Baten who actually reads the papers before he accepts/rejects, etc. R&R only takes one week. Mostly unhelpful report filled with numerous unnecessary resentful and bitter. Fast R&R with reasonable reports and encouraging editor letter. Not worth the time wasted. AE followed majority reports without additional insights. Tone of the reports harsher than at better journals. Editor was very kind. not the fastest experience, but high quality comments from referees and the editor who liked the paper. Emailed journal to withdraw submission after 14 months. Probably the fastest journal I've had experience with. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. One referee reports is only 2 short paragraphs long and completely wrong. Job Market. Arbitrary decision without sending it to refs by incompetent editor. Amazing. Annoying! A shame the editor sided with the second. Rejected in 4 days, editor said work was done net resting but not broad enough. Referee report was ready within a month after submission. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. UCLA Economics. 3 months for conference decision and 2 months of journal decision. Wilson inform me, on average, EI first decision is in 67 days, but my six months delay is not due to neglect (YEAH RIGHT! Long wait for such an outcome, 3 reports and Editor provides some good suggestions within 10 weeks. After 10 months waiting, I had a revise and resubmit decision. Heard nothing and received no replies to my emails. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. Home | Economics Job Market Rumors The referee just want to reject and did not want to spend reasonable effort to read your paper. Very slow. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Expedient. AE rejected without commenting on referee report, At least a quick report with one good comment that can help to improve the paper, but with the other points highlighted by the referee were discussed in the paper. It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. Editor mentioned the wrong econometric model in email making it clear it was not read. linking the paper with the "literature in the field", although we specifically say that our empirical application is novel to the field, so there are no comparable references. 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. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable commentvery well run journal, fast and no submission fee! Editor's letter mentioned a 2-1 split in favor of rejection, so she rejected. Rejected within one day. We may have been aiming too high. Editor suggested field journal. Suggested a top field journal! seven weeks to say poor fit when similar and cited papers are published there. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. Terrible experience. Otherwise, efficient process, decent reports. Referee clearly did not read paper closely because the bulk of his (limited) comments focused on why I don't address an issue that is addressed prominently in the introduction. main message was that paper is a poor fit. Submitted a really cool COVID-19 theory and emperical paper. Second round was down to one ref and editor, third round was just editor. I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. Avoid this journal by any means. The editor also read the paper and gave very good comments and suggestions. They should just ask me $60. Research Interests : Digital Platforms & Society, Regulatory Uncertainty on Digital Platforms. After two interventions got 1 ridiculous report. multiple rounds, one of round took about a year. Editor provided detailed advice throughout the entire revision process. Great experience. solution? After revision was done the AE decided to reject without sending to referees! 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. Avoid this journal. 50% of Americans believe US should support Ukraine 'as long as it takes Comments were not very helpful. Desk rejected after more than 6 months without any review or comments. Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. Less than two weeks from submission to editorial decision. Economics Journal Submission Wiki | Economics Job Market Rumors I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. Referee misread the paper, and hammered us on points that we were not making. Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. What was the Dittmar scandal at Michigan/Ross in the old days? Held my paper for a full year and rejected it on a split decision with one ref suggesting an RR and the other a reject. Good reviews by the referee and the AE. Great experience overall, Editor decided not to wait for the late referee not to slow down the process. The editor rejected based on flimsy reasons. High submission fees. Highly recommended. Editor was a little bit lazy as it took him two months after receiving the ref report to answer. Editor read paper and gave good comments, but ultimately rejected. 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. Editor then read the paper and rejected it. I declined the offer to resubmit. Would submit here again. Some useful comments from his friend. Very quick route to getting useful reports. It took almost two month for a desk reject. I knew I shot too high. Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. Based on the large volume of submissions we receive bla bla, Unfathomably long time to first decision, referee comments impleid the paper was not read diligently, despite being just 4-5 pages. Good first round reports, took a while to respond to all the comments. Charging for this should be a crime. They have not released it, sorry. Fair referee reports, ref. 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. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. Will probably not be using this journal again. In any case, the paper is not a good match for the JIE, both because it is highly technical and (more importantly) because it is more of a trade theory paper than an IO paper. 20 months to acceptance since first submission. Good reports with decent suggestions. Very helpful reports and overall a smooth process. Great experience. Job Market. So they had no idea about basic econometrics. Mediocre assessment from referee with some helpful suggestions. Very efficient journal, 3 very helpful reports from a coeditor and 2 referees. two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. Generic comment of the editor. The comments were not helpful, but at least I know that the editor has a strong bias towards the method. Referee reject after more than a year. Referees and editor reports were incredibly useful, Shitty ref report. He does not read the paper, or he has no expertise. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. Two referee reports, one engaged and constructive, the other written in incredibly poor English that took issue with some phrases I used. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit. The editor claimed that himself and another associate editor read the paper. The referee acted as if I didn't cite and discuss papers mentioned in the report. The Editor does appologize on the long delay saying one referee did not provide the report. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. Go report in 2 days. Hostile report stating "I do not belive your assumptions", editor ignored it. An extremely meager, short, embarassing, useless report. Very good experience. Turns out that means he's following the Schwert model: don't read the paper, regurgitate the reviewer's comments in the decision letter. 2 weeks to desk reject. Process seemed very fair. Good comments from the referee. 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). Culter said that there was backlog at JHE. He made the most stupid argument to reject the paper. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. Reject. Our paper is rejected after receiving one referee report. Editor cites two but only sends one. It seems they rushed to reject it. Initial review was slow but there was an editor change that may have contributed to this. Desk reject after 1 week. We got referee rejection in 2.5 months: 2 referees, one favours RR, other rejects. One positive and one negative. Short turn around time. Baltagi desk rejected it in 2 days for being lack of novelty. Both reports are not really useful. Completely useless reports from referees/editor not know the methodology involved. Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. 2.5 weeks. Very disappointing experience with the journal and refereeing process. No indication that the editor had even read the paper. 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. However, they want to reject whatever you want. Otrok rejected within 7 days; considerable comments on the paper, though the three major points are either just wrong or addressed (one of them prominently) in the introduction of the paper. My experience with other journals when there is only 1 referee, the editor always provides a report detailing their reasons for accepting or rejecting the paper. The editor rejected after 12 months mentioning 4 referee reports. Submitted July 2012, short empirical paper, still waiting for first response. Waste of time. Invited to revise and resubmit the paper. Process ended after 1 report. Split referees, Adda came down on the side of the negative ones. After more data were collected, the editor said "a referee suggested empirical work was not serious enough." Good experience. Not sure why we didn't get desk rejected. Editor Chandra rejected with one ref report. After three months, I received an email from the editor that he still hasn't received the referee report, so he assumed the referee didn't like the paper and therefore he rejects it. Learn More About Katia. Single report. Quite useful to provide further extensions, Fast processing and three excellent referees that helped to substantially improved the paper. Very fast process, that is why I submitted to the journal. Do not offer any innovative technique. Just that paper did not meet the bar. AE recommended other journals. But editor is very good, One referee report with no constructive comments. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. Very tough journal with very extensive comments from 3 refs. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days. The contribution of the paper is not suficient for the EJ. Complete waste of time. (310) 206-1413. Finance Job Rumors (489,470) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,758) Micro Job Rumors (15,233) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,523) Industry Rumors (40,348) Worst experience ever. Referees ok, not great. Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. Editor accepted the article within one week. One decent and one sloppy report, 1 good report, 1 bad one, decent turnaround time. editor very helpful. Apparent that editor read the paper. Two month later it is rejected and get two referee reports (fair enough there). Desk rejected in 6 days with no explanation. OMG: ht tps : // incels . wiki / Economics Job Market Rumors Fast and efficient. All three schools are exceptional but UChicago is particularly strong in Econ as well as other core subjects such as polisci and philosophy. Will submit again.. Very long wait. Editor rejected, but I have a feeling that both refs recommended R&R for different reasons. Editor and editorial staff excellent. Fast editors. Very useful referee reports. Constructive and very detailed referee comments improved the paper. 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. Very good referee report. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. Overall experience is good. Then again, it only took a couple of weeks to get the rejection. Despite being so tough, all comments were fair and refs wrote great reports that dramatically improved the paper. Receive reports from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates | Economics Department (Shouldn't these cases be desk-rejected instead of being rejected after 6 months?). Overall an excellent experience. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. Seems safe to ignore the submission guideline: "In tables, please report standard errors in parentheses but do not use *s to report significance levels.". one positive, one flat reject review, the editor decided to reject. Rather weird outcome but quite quick for a journal of its reputation. Two useful reports. Finance Job Rumors (489,486) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,772) Micro Job Rumors (15,235) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,012) China Job Market (103,527) Industry Rumors (40,348) 1 Month and 10 days for first decision is too long. Editor was Andrew Street. Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! Waste of the submission fee. Good editing process. rejected after 5 months of 'reviews completed'. Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. Then one round of R&R and second referee changed his mind. It is probably not surprising that the editor simply failed to understand the theoretical model and the referees had zero understanding of the empirics. the difference was not economically meaningful. Extremely outdated econometric "suggestions" and an overall lack of understanding. Overall, very positive experience. Great letter from Nezih G and two good referee reports. Fast process. Decent referee reports. Really quick response and decent referee report. complete waste of time, Very nice editor's letter. (However, because there was only one referee, whose specialty aligned with only part of the paper, he/she barely attempted to comment on much of the paper, perhaps to its detriment.). Encouraging and polite comments from editor. Very helpful referee report. Most inefficient handling ever. 3 weeks for a desk rejectand they keep the $100. One referee read the paper line by line and gave constructive comments. Ridiculous experience. Not much insight from the editor, whose concerns were rather vague. Moderately useful reports. very good experiencefast and helpful comments from the co-editor and two refereesAverage time between the submission and response is about 1.5 months, well run journal. Over 8 weeks for a desk reject due to poor fit for journal. Nothing that indicated they read the paper or even seriously considered it. Got a form letter in 10 days. The rejection was fine but took too long for a desk reject. Also very fast. So despite I got a rejection, the experience is actually not that bad. Desk reject two days after I submitted the manuscript. After two weeks we got a desk rejection with a very impersonal letter which made us think that the editor did not even read the intro. Desk accept? Very useful reports, also doing some editing. The referee reports were also awful. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. A true scholar and a gentleman. Fair and useful comment by the editor. Total 6 months. Actually a nice experience. Silly comments from AE. R&R in two months. for a desk reject with quite boring paragraphs from the editor along the lines why this is not using Angrist-Pischke methods One of the referee reports was very well informed. This journal is a joke. I received an answer of the editor after 2 months. Overall, it was a good experience. 1 good Referee and good Editor. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. It was a long process but the editor and referees were genuinely helpful. Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. Shame on Co-Editor. I'm over the moon, great experience ! Two referee reports. Not helpful in any way. Good referee report and very efficient editor. The latter may be fine but it is clear that the referee did not read the paper very carefully. Fast desk reject on subjective grounds. Editor decided based on 1 report. Editor sent a peper to a 3rd ref, which took forever to write another negative report. Referee reports were on the shrt side, but competent and polite, unfrtunately I doubt that the comments received will help improving the paper. Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. Finance Job Rumors (489,491) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,777) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,013) China Job Market (103,528) Industry Rumors (40,348) This page collects information about the academic mathematics job market: positions, short lists, offers, acceptances, etc. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. Although the suggested changes would have made the paper way too long for an EL pub. Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. 6 months for a referee report written by a plain imbecile who could not even derive Proposition 1. Editor not helpful at all. Also a very kind editorial letter. 1: 1: We have moved! Provided very useful comments. Editor (Voth) was polite but did not say much. In general, it is difficult to follow the derivations due to a lack of intuitive explanations. Ultimately fair. Not easy - but straightforward. Cantillon is not a good editor. After "awaiting referee selection" for 4 months, I sent a query and got one referee report. Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help. Excellent experience. Great experience. Job Market | Department of Economics | Virginia Tech He might have read the abstract--clearly doesn't know the literature enough to see the contribution. Reject because apparently would not fit in their journal. Quick turnaround, helpful comments, will submit again, Desk rejected in less than a week. paper rejected after one round of R&R due to extremely negative attitude of the one referee. A bit long for a short paper, comments were fair and detailed although they pointed the way to an R&R rather than rejection. Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. Only quibble is one referee got stuck on a (not applicable) approach and wouldn't let go. I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know very quick. You received a high fee, you explain at least one sentence about your decision making. One of them was very detailed. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. Desk-rejected after one week without any substantial or specific comment, apart recommending to submit to a specialist journal. One very low quality. Second referee made some useful suggestions. Pleasant first publication experience. reports: 1 ridiculous, 1 useless, 1 useful, 6 months from initial submission to acceptance. Write any form of equation and you're skewered! Recommended. Ref. Bruno Biais was AE. Very good experience, competent referees and quick feedback after the resubmission. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. Very professional editors. Solid referee report and very quick response. Awful experience. The editor (Sushanta Mallick) rejected it by 'just by looking at the descriptive statistics' (the original words from the decision letter). Submitted August 14, 2015. Duke University.

Harcourt Developments Haslar, Henry Seeley Leaves Planetshakers, Articles E