Unfortunately the editor decides to reject the paper on the last round because he has concern about the paper. Maybe the paper did not merit publication in JMCB but that referee report was really ridiculous. The report was substantive and some comments were helpful, though there was only one of them. wanted to reject from the outset. Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small). Theory in one field sent to AE in another field doing empirics. Shame on Co-Editor. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. Also the editor gave us good comments. Process a bit slow. Dest rejected in three days. Only one semi-informative report. Rejected but with excellent reports. Website | CV Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Not sure whether to classify this as a desk or referee reject. The editor (Mallick) gave us some additional advice and was ok with the result. Avoid this shitty journal. I would submit again or recommend this outlet! A fairly high quality report, useful, within 24 days. Fast. One useful report and the other less so. Only had to face one reviewer in the second round. The paper is accepted in another journal now. 2 reports + report from AE which is a lot better than referee reports. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. 2 reviewers, 1 poor, 1 quite demanding and useful. No feedback at all. Took 4 months to report that the article was not a good fit and return without reports. Every time I'm impressed by how precise the reviews and suggestions are. 1 week: nice, but no fit with general interest. Really bad experience (Midrigan was the editor). The Editor mentioned that the paper is outside the scope of the Journal. Did get a field journal suggestion and a refund of submission fees. Fast response from the Editor. The editor had read the paper and provided guidance. Two good reports. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. I am asked to send to another journal because the paper is not a good fit, the editor is very nice, professional and efficient. Standard experience with the JHR. Extremely disappointed. After 7 months of waiting. Employers may also contact the students and their . 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!!!). Focus too narrow for a general interest journal. One paragraph report when decision finally made. Overall decent and professional expert reports. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. Very weak reports. Submission to a special issue. He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. Desk reject in a week. submission was in 2017. Almost 8 months to acceptance, despite Revised version submitted after 5months. very well-run journal, Very thoughtful referee reports with clear suggestions for improvement, as well as recommendations from the co-editor for better suited journals, editor read the paper and rejected with some useful comments. He suggested a general interest journal. Katz rejected in two hours with comments that seemed to be written for some other paper. Desk rejected within 7 days. Very good experience. They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. "Referee report" Biggest joke on Earth!! Very good reports. Referee's comment was useful but contained too many extensions. Rejected by an Associate Editor, who actually read the paper, got the main idea clearly, and wrote a 2 full-page report with reasoning why this is not for JET and what journal outlets might be considered. Really unprofessional. Very quick rejection (24 hours), with nice words from the editor, who obviously read the paper. Referees rejected. 2 week turnaround. My paper was not complicated and could have been rejected in 2-3 months easily. Down side: reports are quite short: 1 paragraph each. The report I did get back (in the form of an email from the editor) was not very informative (referee claimed "expressing time series as deviations from trend does not produce a stationary time series". Fast and clean. Secondary: Applied Macroeconomics and International Economics. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. Unacceptable waiting time. Reasonable comments from referees. one positive, one flat reject review, the editor decided to reject. The equation to be estimated is not well explained and basic econometric issues (e.g., the problems related to the inclusion of lagged dependent variables) are not discussed. So there is zero feedback. Fair decision. Arizona School Board rejects hiring teachers with Christian values: What is the best country currently to live in? Update to previous pending post. Rejected because topic did not fit the journal. Would try again. The initial resposen took too long (almost 4 moth to be sent our to referees). Referee claims no revisements were made after substantial revisements were made and detailed. The reviews were short and gave some good feedback. after more than 3 months still "with editor". main message was that paper is a poor fit. However, everything was fixed, and overall I am happy. Horrible. Don't think they even bothered reading the first page. The AE report made no sense at all, and had very little substance. Three high quality reports that have helped to improve the paper. Rejected by editor. Have contacted the editorail asistant three times (startung six weeks after submission) who said she would remind the editor. The reports were largely useless. The new editor (Leeat Yariv) did a great job: She indeed read the paper and gave constructive comments. Serrano handled the manuscript. Given all that has happened with JPE in recent years, don't think I will waste my time and money with them again. $ 200 is high for an immediat desk rejection, editor was helpful in replying to inquiry regarding reason for desk rejection. Strongly recommend submitting there. Editor clearly read the paper. Big lie. It seems to me that the editor rejected based on how well the article was written, rather than the substance of the work. Very good referee and associate editor report. RR with major changes, then RR with minor changes, then accepted after 1 week. Frustrating. Still, was super fast and allows to improve the paper. Decent referee report, acceptance 3 days after submitting revision. Placements of Recent Economics Graduates. The referee had a chip on their shoulder and the editor stepped in. After revise and resubmit, was rejected, Next year, similar article appeared in the journal authored by one of the associate editors. Referees did not bother to read the paper. In hindsight, submitted the paper too prematurely. However, the quality of the report is very high and it helps improve the paper a lot. No regrets, Good reports, not extremely helpful, but good. R&R only one round; after submitting the revised version, only waited for six days until final acceptance. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. Not enough of a contribution for JPE, suggested AEJs. Pretty fast, 1 high quailty report. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. Would try again in the future. One quite short referee report. He might have read the abstract--clearly doesn't know the literature enough to see the contribution. I wish them luck. Katz rejected my paper before I was done submitting it; suspect time travel. Also suggested 3 very good field Journal. Grossbard handled the paper and accepted conditional on rewrite around her useless and poorly cited old work. Do not offer any innovative technique. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). The paper is now much stronger. But very quick process after contacting editorial office. Very professional way of handling the process, Very helpful report which has permitted to increase the quality of the paper. Disappointing turnaround for this journal. Very good experience: I wish all my rejected submissions were as fast and polite. Total turn around time was about 40 days. Horrible treatment. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. Horner is a disaster! Both referees caught the major issue in the paper and offered great suggestions for moving forward. 2 poor quality reports after 8 months of being under review. Will not b submitting here again until editorial board changes. Came back within 4 hours, nice letter by Katz with suggestions of where to submit, 5 days for a desk reject. nice letter from editor, good and fair comments, 1 ref report good. Still not a fan of this journal. Referee was sharp, thoughtful, and thorough. Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. I dont care whether you want to increase citations and impact factor fo your journal. Our paper went through four rounds and finally accepted after one year of its submission. I had notice that it was sent to reviewers in. Desk rejected after 40 days. RR was done with care and useful overall. Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. 6 weeks for two reasonable referee reports. avoid. The editor's comments are not informative. Nice communication with the Editor, but the referre report was terse with only one and brief idea. Signaling. Never again! Two referees in the first round, good comments. Quick turnaround upon revision. Both referees are bad at econometrics. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. Editor did seem to have read the paper, possibly in more detail than the referee who comments several thing that was included in paper. Worst experience I have ever had. Good communication with the editor, very helpful referee report. Editor's comments were very useful, like a good referee report. 1 reviewer R&R, two reject. Lucky to get past desk reject. Suggested field journal. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. Submitted August 14, 2015. Decision was made in 45 days. First report provided helpful insights, second - only half page of general comments. desk with a letter from editor. Not a particularly good experience, constructive reports, editor had read the paper and gave additional comments, One bad/objectively false report, one useful report. Long wait, decision was communicated with a delay of 3 months after reports had been received. The other one, who wanted extra revises, was a bit of stupid. People need filters. Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. Unfortunately, this is my usual experience with EER. I have no problem receiving a desk-reject, but the stated reasons show no understanding of our research. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. The contributions are very thoroughly detailed in the introduction, ie, the referee had to read around 3 pages and took him/her 6 months to do so. Editor is very efficient and professional. Not general interest enough. Only 1 report, but a fair assessment of the paper. Desk rejected in a week. from AE, but editor rejected without explanation. First reviewer excellent. Rejected for not have a theoretical contribution. 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. Worthless garbage report, no redeeming value. Very, very disappointed! Fast response and quality report made me satisfied even though I got a fast rejection. Comments are constructive. Editor had a "confidential" report that he wouldn't share, and on the basis of that chose rejection. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. Now? Good experience. All queries tough but manageable - only difficulty was having 3 refs say sometimes contradictory things. Both referees clearly read the paper and discussed potential concerns of the analysis. 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. Both reports made non-sense suggestions (not sure if read through), editor did not read the article. I contacted the journal about that but no response. Would not hesitate to submit to this journal in the future. Good comments, helped improve the paper. 7 weeks. He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. Very good experience. Negative reaction of referees. Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. The reviewer was excellent, made the paper much better with his/her comments. My worst experience ever. Referees ok, not great. About 14 weeks from submission to referee reject. Pulled a weak R&R. The editor (Hongbin Li) rejects because of lack of fir with the journal's mission. We sent two more emails about the status of the paper and did not get a response from the office. Asim I. Khwaja editor, Two out of three referee reports were good one was much less. The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. Please Login or . Both editor and referees liked the paper, comments from referees are on the point and constructive. After resubmitting, accepted in 2 weeks without going to referees. Referees did not understand the contribution of the paper. Very quick process. Definitely recommend submitting to the journal. Basically useless, a waste of time. Referees reasons to reject the paper are not convincing enough. Will submit again in the future! What a terrible journal. 1 good report and 1 not so good. The editor Mark Taylor accepted the paper after one day of the last re-submission. This page collects information about the academic mathematics job market: positions, short lists, offers, acceptances, etc. Was rejected today by editor as only 1/2 referee reports submitted. Editor identity unknown. Referee reports were of high quality. They should just ask me $60. 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. Two of three referees did not read the paper. Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. Difficulties to reach the editor, but useful report and very fast decision (1 day) after submitted the revised manuscript. Bar-Isaak is the editor in charge (much better than others like nocke). Letters from the Editor was nice. Two reports are suggestive but the other one was a low-quality. Good comments from refs that really helped the paper. Desk Rejected after 2 days. Saying that the topic is not general enough. He suggests AER Insights and top field journals. One associate editor recommended rejection and no other comments/suggestions, but one referee provided very useful comments and s/he seems to be positive about the paper(I post one row which has the wrong info on journal name, should be JPE rather than QJE). highly unprofessional, the report is not useful, comments make little sense and contradict to the extant literature on the topic. Editor handled it well. Five weeks "with editor" to a boilerplate desk reject, then they asked me to applaud them for a "speedy decision.". The paper is in between energy and finance, and the referees were more knowledgable of Energy than Finance, where our approach is more standard I'd say. Editor and refs liked the topic but not the empirical strategy. Invited to submit for a special conference issue and then the editor desk rejected. Will avoid in the future. 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? The bar is high for Exp Econ. All in all it was a fair rejection and a good experience overall. Overall, it was a smooth process. Waiting was attrociious and final rejection not properly justified since reviewers went AWOL. The letter from the editor suggests that he/she did not have a firm grasp of the paper. 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! Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. First report was helpful, second one was literally 2 lines. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. Both refs postive but think the topic is not a good fit for the journal. Editor couldn't find referees, rejected and claimed two reports but only one sent. referees said "nice but not great". One positive review, one negative, referee took the side of the negative. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. Single report. Paper very close to editor's (Rogerson) field of interest. A lot of small nit-picky criticism and some factually wrong statements about paper. No way to check on status. Generic rejection. Job Market Candidates. Within a week with no justification. 2 weeks. desk rejected after more than 2 months, very generic motivation (try a field journal), they took the submission fees and thanked me a lot for the payment! Editors are not reading referee reports. two years is a bit too long, especially given that it will take more than a year before the paper appears in the journal. OK comments from referee. Very happy with the process, definetly a favorite for future. Suggested Ecological Economics. You needed 2 months to tell me that? Referees all showed an understanding of the paper and suggestions were useful. AE recommended other journals. The paper is mostly empirical and they asked for massive extension of the dataset. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a papers contribution. One rejected outright, one offered R&R. Ref reports were okay. Duh, Very helpful response from editor giving specific reasons that the manuscript would not be sent to referees, Thanks for your joining the Society, by the way, we don't think your historical paper with brand new historical data is right for a history journal. Nice editor. Charging for this should be a crime. 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 . Two months for desk reject -- no comments given. nice experience. Portuguese Economic Journal* Great process. rejection after 9 months without any useful comments. Reports were ok, but total process took way too long. Deemed too narrow for the journal. Quick, polite desk rejection from Deming. Weird editor pushing for a change in the results. Short turn around time. Efficient and fair. Overall, paper first sent in November and accepted in next August! Editor (Reis) worked hard on paper to make it better. One unprofessional and clueless referee. Worst referee report ever. unreasonable report, the referee imposed a t-stat of at least 5 or 6 for an empirical study. The time to response is not long as well. the journal is recovering. All referee reports were gave entirely stylistic comments with no real grounds for rejection. Please post listings by subject area. low-quality referee reports. DR after one week. The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made. My paper was in "submitted" status for almost 5 months when made a query. Complete garbage. Overall, a very fair process. Job Market. Paper was accepted in 1 month after the submission. Complete waste of time.. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), Reports not very helpful, paper not in journal scope. Much better than regular EL. Miserable. Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. reports, the reports were all nice an constructive. Manuscript number assigned at 10AM, rejected by 7PM. Whole process super quick. Good editor. Go report in 2 days. Two sloppy reports, one useful. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. Within a week, Laura Schechter clearly went through the paper and give it a thought with a couple of helpfull comments. Another one was sharp. Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days. 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). Editor Bruce Hollingsworth suggested an alternative journal. Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. Some good comments though. Editor desk rejected after a couple of weeks due to lack of fit. No comments about the paper itself. Referee report was reasonable and improved the manuscript. I guess I had the luck of being assigned to two business school types with absolutely no idea of the literature that my model belonged to. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. Old fashined. Helpful reports, overall good experience. Less than 3 weeks for the first responses (major R&R) then accepted in less than a week. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. Not sure I'd call it a full referee report, however, and only receiving one report is strange. One of the worst experience I have ever had. Submitted more than 2 months, still shown the status as "under ADM", 5 months first RR, 5 months second RR, 2 weeks final acceptance. Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. Reasonable motivations for desk rejection provided, Fast desk rejection, poor targeting on my part, desk reject but with useful feedback from AE. Fast process and 2 helpful ref. Very useful comments. Decent reports, rejecting for fair reasons. Good reports. A bit long for a short paper, comments were fair and detailed although they pointed the way to an R&R rather than rejection. Editor obviously read the paper and had great comments. The contribution of the paper is not suficient for the EJ. Very polite desk rejection. Not big enough contribution. Both referees read the paper, one of them even found some mistake in the proof. I expected something more serious from a journal with such a high submission fee. Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE. Very helpful comment. Can't complain with the decision and the entire process. One referee gave lots of great comments, while the other referee was pretty much useless. Thanks for quick decision. The structure of the game, the policy and strategy spaces and other concepts are not introduced with sufficient clarity. Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade, Fair and efficient process. 1 reviewer was clearly an expert, 2 others were less thorough than might be expected, one recommended R&R the other did not read the paper was clearly ideologically biased, the editor sided with the latter, Quick process, referees made some good comments, not a bad experience, one positive referee report, one negative referee report. Editor mentioned additional points and suggested a field journal as an alternative. Law School. Engineering at HPE He/she also asked for the summary statistics of my high frequency data while I already provided the estimates of bid-ask spread, price impact, order flow autocorrelation of each month for the entire contracts which shows his lack of knowledge about market microstructure. Report very critical but useful nonetheless. Quick desk reject with a few comments from the editor. Lost more than 6 months for nothing. The other is constructive but not as good. Good comments from the referee. Should have read the comments here about how badly run this journal is. Desk reject after 27 days by Kurt Mitman. Mathematics Jobs Wiki. Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. Good helpful report asking for few corrections. 1 really excellent, positive report. I didn't know that JHR is a general interest journal!