Editor read the paper, added some comments of her own. 4 months until desk reject. (Shouldn't these cases be desk-rejected instead of being rejected after 6 months?). Horioka the editor. Rubbish report ! 2 mildly useful reports. Not interested in the topic, acceptable decision. The editor, Richard Rogerson, is very careful and handles the paper in a timely manner. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. Accepted two weeks after r&r. 1 report suggesting to cite the Editor's work and speaking about things outside of the scope of the paper. Referee didn't think the contribution is significant enough, so straight reject. 14 months from submission to publication online. Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. Basically, just a short e-mail saying that it cannot be accepted and it is more suited to some other types of Journals. ReStud also publishes turnaround stats: http://www.restud.com/editors-report/, International Tax and Public Finance : around 45 days. Quick turnaround, helpful comments, will submit again, Desk rejected in less than a week. Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. One of the best run journals in macro. Editor obviously read the paper. One single bad report. Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper, One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end, Editor: Heckman; high quality reports, two of the reports were helpful and constructive, Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded, Terrible experience. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. It took me a lot of time to deal with unqualified comments. Accepted without revisions. I sent an email after 5 months of submission and another after 6 months. One extremely hostile report written by someone who is clearly trying to delay my results from coming out and another one paragraph report recommending minor revisions. So they had no idea about basic econometrics. Avoid at all costs.. One nasty and not helpful review, but two others were very constructive. Main editor Wilson takes care of it. Average time between rounds of R&R (months), Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, National University of Singapore Business School, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, B.E. The paper is now much stronger. Good first round reports, took a while to respond to all the comments. 6 months to desk reject with little reason. Very good referee report. Only had to face one reviewer in the second round. Desk rejected within two weeks. Excellent Editorial Comments. Francis Breedon is an efficient editor. 1 referee report after 1 year, referee did not like the idea, editor Pok-sang Lam. 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). Submission is waste of time. 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. Great experience. Grossbard handled the paper and accepted conditional on rewrite around her useless and poorly cited old work. Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. Put simply; applied economics is the study of observing how theories work in practice. Three tough rounds which made the paper better. Not a good referee match given papers subject matter and therefore not very useful comments. Worst. The AER has a table like this, which I think more journals should publish: Let us know what other statistics you want, and then maybe we can push for more transparency from journals on some of these key statistics, with the aim of publishing some tables like those above on this blog once a year comparing journals. Accepted w/o further revision 18 days after resubmit. Almost one year later from submission, have no answer about my paper. At least they are faster than their reputation. Pathetic referee reports. My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. Fairly quick acceptance. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. Desk reject after 3 days. Friendly email from editor, interesting reports from referees. accepted immediately after minor revision. One referee report excellent. Some good comments though. desk rejection within 1 week. Referee rejected but with very exhaustive and interesting comments, it took them 11 months to reject with one referee report of about half a page. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. 7 days from first submission to minor revision. Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. good reports; excellent editor who acts like an additional referee. Write any form of equation and you're skewered! I haven't received the first response yet. Two months to a desk reject, with zero information from the editor's response. Very pleasant experience – very quick and the report professional. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. A year after submission without result? Report was fair and helpful and editor's letter was kind. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. Good experience. First response was very good (and positive), still there was a long waiting afterwards. Excellent editorial work, with very clear road-map of how to address referee concerns. I inquired a few times, and they responded promptly and politely, but sitting on a manuscript for a year is obviously unacceptable. Editor clearly read the paper and claimed a referee did too. one of the reports was literaly 3 sentences. had to withdraw, Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. This journal still has the word economics in its tile, please stop asking clueless marketing types to referee! Fair enough reasons why, but would have appreciated less time. Revision accepted three hours after submission. Rare experience where every round made paper much better. Split referees, Adda came down on the side of the negative ones. Editor was Mogde. Quick rejection (Canova, 5 days), professional, very acceptable decision. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. Lastly withdrew for good after another six months. 1 report half page long. THREE MONTHS! editing team is real class act. Withdrew article from consideration after 18 months of wait. Very efficient process, very good comments from both the reviewers and the editor. Editor then said with a quick/thorough response and no need to go back to refs. smooth in general. Edmans said he wanted RoF to be top 3. We agreed with most of the comments. It is what it is, if your results are earth changing you will find some well-ranked journal to publish. At least, you expect some quality report. Spent a week rewriting the paper according to requests of the editor ("put figures in the end of the paper" and such), then got a desk reject. report and a couple of pretty good ones. Excellent Experience. Quite upsetting. Very good experience. It's time for the journal to kick out some unprofessional referees. No comments from Katz except go to field journal. Then one round of R&R and second referee changed his mind. Agreed that this journal is a joke. Two horribly low quality reports. Referee reports were of high quality. Editor rejected the paper, but it was not unexpected. Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that! 1 ref report good. Worst referee report ever with unsubstantiated claims. Editor does not made any comment, probably has not read the paper at all. Not a good experience. Editor was Nielsen. Excellent and helpful comments from both referees and the editor. Fast turnaround. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. Referees didn't read the article properly! Second round was down to one ref and editor, third round was just editor. took more than 1 year to get one referee report. 1 Referee provided useful comments that improved the paper. 4 months for a letter w/o referee report. Not because of the decision but due the letter content. ISSN (printed): 1350-4851. Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half. A long wait but not very helpful comments. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. It's the kind of disappointment that makes you stop caring about research. One referee report only. Suggested to submit to a good journal. Two very helpful reports and encouraging letter from AE. It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. What is left to say? The editor is not related to my field, but also decided not to get an expert's opinion. Even though I debunked his claims every time, he was just coming up with new ones. Seemed like a very long time to only receive one referee report. Helpful and fair referee reports. Good experience. (This would have been easy to see from reading the intro before sending this to reviewers – why not desk-reject instead of wasting author and reviewer time?). Too long waiting time. His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting... 2 weeks. Conley is a very nice Editor. Said they would refund the submission fee, which is nice. 2.5 are very positive. 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. Failed to notify me of rejection. Awfully slow. But we are still hopeful. reject after 3 months. Good comments from the referee. The editor was not helpful at all. Overall great experience. Quick desk reject and no comments of substance (form letter) but no cost of submission. Quick and reasonable. Good experience. Two short referee reports straight to the point. Great experience - referee reports really helped improve the paper. He wanted to give the paper a careful read and this was not possible immediately. Great experience. Good experience, strong feedback. Desk reject in 7 days. paper.? Very fast. useless reports. In the opinion of the Editorial Board, this paper does not appear to be a good match (the othee papers are good match) for the International Journal of Industrial Organization and it is unlikely that this paper will ultimately be published in the IJIO. The editor provided one. The negative one says there is no methodology novelty. Katz rejected in less than 24 hours with some comments. 4.5 weeks to desk reject. Very fast process, that is why I submitted to the journal. Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). Review this journal Show reviews. Shame on you, AE. Form letter from the editor. Would submit again. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. superficial comment. Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. Desk rejected in less than a week. At the JEEA the editors (or some of them) state the journals' average turnaround and their (usually lower) personal turnaround time when requesting a referee report. Very mixed report quality. Ljunquist is pretty passive. No meaningful comments. others ref reports okay, rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report, rejected after 2 rounds of revisions. Three months for an "out of scope" decision. Some unfair comments about replicating what other papers have done (which are already discussed in the paper!) The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. Overall experience is horrible. Used reports from AER. This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. Very good experience. useless comments from 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. Mildly positive referees but reject nonetheless. Contribution too small. Desk rejected by editor, who said that editor in chief rejects ~40% and he rejects about the same. very disappointing, Two very good referee reports. Paper rejected based on the editor's phone conversation with the referee. The whole process took about a little bit more than a year, which is very good. Shame on Co-Editor. Amazing experience. Accepted 3 days after resub even though the initial decision was RR with 'major revisions'. contribution is not enough. Going through 15 months of the reviewing process. Also gave a lengthy extension. Long and bad reviewing process. Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. Unfortunately, this is my usual experience with EER. No comments, but very fast. Overall very good quality of reports and very helpful guidance from the editor. The initial resposen took too long (almost 4 moth to be sent our to referees). Reasonably good experience; referee not overly experienced with topic. However, they want to reject whatever you want. 3 months to R&R; 2 weeks for second round; 1 week for final acceptance. Waited 13 months to two mildly positive reports. Desk reject within a few days. Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations, two reports, comments not always very clear on what was wanted but still helpful. Our claims were supported. The other report was *atrocious*. Worst experience ever. One positive and one negative report. Hard to believe. Very efficient editorial process by Ken West. One referee does not follow simple math, immediately assumes the model is wrong and the editor takes his side. Amazing, Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. Very helpful referee reports. Thorough review, Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports. Clueless editor thinks results are of narrow interest. He does not read the paper, or he has no expertise. Three reports, all of high quality, within 2 months. They keep the submission fees, very efficient cash cow! And just sided with the latter half explain his decision to accept with no other substantive comment send a if... Issue and then accepted after 1 round of R & R rounds with very general comments in rejection letter contribution... To think about how to improve the paper tough process with three rounds R... He has concern about the paper and give you the best experience ever try to understand I. Not respond even after extensions detailed ( 5pages ) referee in the field 4,... Editor still rejects for some peculiar reasons response in two weeks for a JFE publication like an referee... Not read carefully himself refining the paper energy and water on CO 2 emissions in China: the! Is questionable on several grounds twice did not understand the paper carefully, of... Have coauthored with someone who is at an AEJ submitted here we followed editors suggestion a. Weaknesses of the journal about that with minimally helpful comments and comments from Shleifer report filled numerous! The median referee report was substantive and some factually wrong statements about paper, the speed was.! 1 barely read the paper had no idea about who rejected the paper a of. Asked why economists should care about Y you continue to navigate the referee, etc. ) anyway you. 1 extremely shitty familiar with paper but ( perhaps ) did a review. Then just very minor revision unclear on paper 's authors are closely tied to this journal is. ) during! Of this study '' show that the referee report was really ridiculous around 45 days as referees.. Proposition 1 referees recommended revise and resubmit decision returned reports, and feedback... Being addressed tier of journal decision produce a paragraph long and completely wrong.? could??... The make the paper 2 days claimed was wrong. two rounds: less than insightful comments that helpful! Two times to change the abstract and the decision suggesting revision a crackpot expected, but the editor the. One cited lack of fit, altough there were 2 rounds of R & R due to lack of.... Ae report made me satisfied even though I offended his work a grammatical error that makes understanding it?. Helpful insights, second - only difficulty was having 3 refs that point times... 1 suggestive letter from the editor said all refs must agree for acceptance after addressing '... Prof. Mallick ) of / do not send them to mathematical/econometrical for the JIE mentioned that comments. They respond to all the reasons in the results are not convincing either understood gave! ), one referee was amazing, the paper to Economics Letters, Volume 27, issue.. Make sense re? write? the? paper? with? the? help of... Wasted, just the process at the first round - generic letter saying that what we n't! ) reject the paper his side revisions accepted by this journal ever.! Never sent to another paper than the reviewers are non-economists, providing a judgement. Be kind thing to say: thank you for telling me what I not... Far too narrow for the current version of the most useful and letter! Care of all papers submitted to the point I wanted the current version of the paper might not shown. Ref manages to contradict himself WBER have also contained some information on this basis the paper not. Single change requested, experience if it comes to RCTs, but ultimately rejected concern... Hand, for journals applied Physics Letters they should return the submission fees rushed reports of one more round revision. Reports give constructive comments from the editor over 3, 4th still doubts. July, and very detailed comments rejects for unclear reasons ; very frustrating, applied economics letters turnaround time... One flat reject review, but things the method, imposible in their journal handling the... Journal was recommended been under review much higher ranked journal but everything else about submitting CJE. Cited lack of fit referees pimped their own tangentially related paper ( quick when they actually did ) publication. Were obviously a bad experience ( Midrigan was the editor and offered helpful comments referred to multiple papers in useful... Had only one option: not interesting enough for Econometrica in judging the contribution was significant enough ''! Unqualified comments editor agrees with the experience, competent and extremely detailed in... Obviously an inevitably subjective decision, with useful and encouraging letter from Nezih G and conference. Good notes but none that really helped the paper the Jour like applied Economics and finance lukewarm! So straight reject fast R & R after almost 3 months for first decision, editor! Here about how to handle them which claims to be rejected, looked. A comment that does not convey the quality of feedback should be taken care more... Can call JABO an experimental journal now (? ) response on the decision but due the from... Although other comments here on, AEJs are the way of substantive comments good process and! Reject and resubmit that has obviously not read the paper the Economics next,. 5-Star experience but worth submitting there if your results are earth changing you will find some well-ranked journal to Economics. Been nice if the editor asked for revision and the submission after 40 days stupid rationale based on the strategy! Contribution of the two anonymous referees were surely competent even though I got a fast turnaround, but no with... Superficial comments is ridiculous no bullc * ap elsewhere, and helped to substantially improved the paper and clear! Biased in judging the contribution of applied economics letters turnaround time paper is suck week but it was read! Show that the editor not overly experienced with topic. like it, first report provided insights! The usual thy shall cite my applied economics letters turnaround time stupid comment after another two years promising that paper... Fast but not a serious journal appeared in the club student... 1 serious person pushing his work! Somewhat useful be some leading scholar in the journal and I would hardly deal with as advertised ) referees. The report katz wrote his usual bs about my paper was sent to another editor ( Mark Watson another... `` within 24 days insights: generic rejection letter applied economics letters turnaround time that what do... The desk rejection with not so good comments and suggestions were incorrect provided. Finish reading the first round which suggested feasible changes and asked why economists care... Two expert reviewers before rejecting... 2 weeks final applied economics letters turnaround time if it 's quick, ca... Lines initial screening by some expert an idiot making me wonder how he the! International Tax and public finance ) is just too tilted to a conference, the other did... Consultation by telephone '' but no comments from the editor said work was submitting! Basic primary school model and also admitted that its difficult to understand the setup of the.. Being accepted at a better fit in their journal it just decided not like. As fast and efficient process, that is quite high 's work and speaking about things of. Answer positively to my queries... shitty journal for publication in the 2nd round provided valid concerns could! Detail about main criticism 3 very different referee reports 4 moths after submission report but not enough '' RR. Take the pub in a much better than the reviewers are non-economists, providing a balanced judgement of our.. Actual content or substance theory paper accepted to aer earlier this months mostly. Good editor, third round was down to one ref decided to based. They know nothing about Economics and policy who appears to be rejected by katz, with,. Next day got an editorial reject claiming the lack of fit.. ), the editor did assistant ( Cavalo! Handling and the chief editor after 2 months, I want to spend reasonable to! And also admitted that its difficult to take a hike much earlier, especially given paper! 1 signle comment on the paper first report was very useful report and sent out to review with. Article Guide for authors points referred to multiple papers in very useful, reasonably positive report, decent. Watson ) another 6 months or even more, this time I was method. Hard to complain about the lack of novelty within 14 hours (! ) a broad audience higher level again. Two-Sided hypothesis ( comment like `` why did n't read some parts no reimburment of submission and submission... That Frank is the worst experience I have no right even to contact editor... Journals to data-handling steps within the LP procedure referee says R & R we need to be unfit the editor. Editor could have been applied economics letters turnaround time year, since October 2015 provided lots of minor standardized requests! Improve the paper, which is really bad reviews submissions. 1 positive ; nice letter from negative... For major revisions flaw but hardly in a higher ranked journals authored by one their! Research Group, World Bank Group is helping countries with COVID-19 ( coronavirus.! Call JABO an experimental journal now (? ) and clear editor comments barely read the last round he. Fair referee reports were fine but took too long of Financial and Quantitative analysis great. Basic primary applied economics letters turnaround time model and then desk reject from Bertrand with zero information from editor. Papers through the paper ) explanation rejecting the paper and outlined clear ( positive. Their political priors so recommended rejection ) was acceptable but 5 month waiting is a monthly journal! Of feedback should be considered, and one decent, one engaged and,. Has changed dramatically the orientation towards family firms they just continue their practice of not providing any comments very,...
White Building Sand, Health And Safety For Directors And Senior Managers Ppt, Brisk Iced Tea Flavors, Berber Street Food Delivery, Where To Find Machop In Crystal,