Elsevier is terrible, screwed up the transfer so took over a month to end up on editor's desk. Very fast. Two good referee reports though the review process is A bit slow. Good reports. Valid rejection. Very unprofessional. Pretty bad experience. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). Just thoroughly unprofessional report. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Reports were ok but most of the time was waiting for editor to pull his finger out. 1.5 weeks overall, Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics. 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 . Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. useless comments from editor. Two referees, two weak R&Rs, editor rejects despite the recommendations of referees. Eight weeks to get two very high-quality reports. The referees and the editor took ridic, Editor: Heckman; high quality reports, two of the reports were helpful and constructive. Editorial work was very fair - gave an R&R despite split reports. 5 weeks for a desk reject. Both reviews helpful - one very extensive. Three mediocre reports. Excellent handling. Quite upsetting. 2 months with almost no answer, although the journal claims desk rejections are within days. Expected a lot better from this journal. Maybe the paper did not merit publication in JMCB but that referee report was really ridiculous. Nice letter. The latter may be fine but it is clear that the referee did not read the paper very carefully. quick and clear communication with editor. Use widely accepted methods. I had. Although the suggested changes would have made the paper way too long for an EL pub. The letter from the editor suggests that he/she did not have a firm grasp of the paper. very disappointing. 2 rounds of r&r. Reminded several times and after waiting 1 year got one referee report. AE didn't provide comments which is odd. To avoid. Took some time due to lots of things to revise, but all the requests were fair. Signaling. However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. Desk rejected in 2 days. Obviously, being turned down after a two-year long process and a very extensive revision is bad for a young author. Clearly a club journal. 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. Fair decision. But written by big shots. They will help to improve the paper. Pretty fast, the reports are good. Form letter. A very pleasant experience after 5 rounds of really bad reviews. Two referees made great reviews and very detailed comments. editorial team do not respond to email. Good comments from referee and editor after five months. no comments given. Good points, though, and overall a good experience. Felt somewhat subjective. Editor appeared to have at least glanced at the paper. The shitty one referred to multiple papers in very low ranked journals authored by the same set of authors. Very bad reports. Desk-rejected after one week without any substantial or specific comment, apart recommending to submit to a specialist journal. Notice that I submitted there on the basis of the widely publicized (EEA Gothenburg) fastness of this journal. Agreed that this journal is a joke. This, of course, is useless. Quick rejection (Canova, 5 days), professional, very acceptable decision. Waste of time. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. They all got published in other journals and a book. Awful experience. Good experience and good editorial team. 2 students with mostly useless comments. Seriously, avoid this journal. The editor suggested to try a more mainstream Public Finance journal (I think may paper could have fit Public Choice but fair enough I will try another Public Finance journal). very efficient process and useful reports from editor and referess. Initial response slow, then extremely quick after R&R. Perhaps we can call JABO an experimental journal now. If? Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. The editor talked about 4 ref reports. Made paper better. Fast Resposne in 10 week. Ali Kutan is the associate editor, finally accepted the paper. He suspects he could not understand a yota. Decent referee report, acceptance 3 days after submitting revision. Unfair decision. One report was very positive, but the second one looked like it was written in ten minutes citing four papers of his own. Got the refund soon after request. Both found the topic and general question interesting and wanted us to think more carefully which question we ask and how we can answer it. Another one was sharp. Great experience. I thought that I deserved more respect. Very quick and extremely professional. Not clear if the paper was even read. In anyway, you need to be very careful when responding with him, he can easily upset you with a rejection. Expected better from an AEJ. Overall horrifying experience. 3 months for desk reject with superficial comments is ridiculous. Handling editor still rejects for unclear reasons; very frustrating, but at least fairly timely. Very fast process. After pressing four times, they told me it was out for review. Editor was Andrew Street. In really sped things up. Two good reports. Desk rejected by Katz within 24 hours. 18 days, no indication that either adstract or paper was read. However, the quality of the report is very high and it helps improve the paper a lot. Interviewing at the ASSA meetings. Tried to block publication in the second round as well but editor overrode. Every time I'm impressed by how precise the reviews and suggestions are. no submission fee but fast response and fair referee report. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. Soon it became like a bar that doesn't kick out any assholes and now its a collection of assholes who happen to do economics. Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. High submission fees. Reject and resubmit although both referees and AE advised revision. Report is in reasonable quality. I was pleased with the experience because I've never made this far with them. The rejection was fine but took too long for a desk reject. Arizona School Board rejects hiring teachers with Christian values: What is the best country currently to live in? Ona day later they reected it with a one sentence crappy referee report. What is left to say? "Paper not of general interest, try sending to a field journal". Not to say, the shortcoming is an accepted norm till one finds a better way. Good referee report and very efficient editor. Reports are not great. Editor mentioned the wrong econometric model in email making it clear it was not read. Referees did not bother to read the paper. Ref reports both frank and helpful. One decent, the other sloppy. Terrible, very short referee reports. Very fast rounds with very insightful and reasonable referee reports and suggestions by the editor. reports, the reports were all nice an constructive. Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). Rejected and no reason given. Still, was super fast and allows to improve the paper. Editor did not intervene and kept hiding throughout. The article went online first very quickly after acceptance, which was nice. Decision was made in 45 days. STAY AWAY from this journal! Some people are simply too narrow in the scope of their research to be editors of a journal which claims to be of "general interest". suggest some field journals. I am a macroeconomist specialized in economic growth and macro labor. The editor read the paper carefully and made helpful comments. Five weeks, submission to rejection. The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it. Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. 6 weeks for two reasonable referee reports. Referee obviously has no clue of what's going on. One rubbish review from a referee who had no idea what the paper was about. No refund. No meaningful comments. Some not so fair. +6 months for a desk rejection without a single comment. possible that the editor reviewed it himself, but was a fairly straightforward accept, trivial revisions only. It's time for the journal to kick out some unprofessional referees. One was thoughtful report, pointed to at least one direction we can improve. The report is rubbish and incorrect. The referee seems like a first year PhD student who struggled with the notion of left tails. they should have desk rejected, AE told me: you should not be surprised that IER typically does not appreciate this kind of work.. they wasted my time. One good quality report suggesting minor revisions after 1 month. Focus of decision appeared to be on the institutional context of the paper rather than considering the economics. Quickly accepted after the revisions were completed. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. Over half a year for response from one referee who a) had no problems with the methodology, b) liked the writing, and c) thought it had a novel contribution. Nice words from Editor. Very quick desk reject. Good experience, good editor, great referees that really put me through my paces but helped deliver a better paper. Boilerplate "contribution not significant enough", two months pretty long for a desk reject, but can't really complain about the desk reject itself because the paper is not so great. Editor misunderstood the findings, complained didn't understand the Y variable (maybe ease up on the word limit then). Editor rejected. Awful experience. Garbage. Took altogether 8 months to acceptance. Three good reports and fair decision. Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it. Not even one comment. Accepted without revisions. Desk reject after 2 months! Desk rejected, one sentence given. Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. Fair points by referees. a bit slowtwo general positive+one negative reports, and the editor rejected itfeel sad, but not too bad experience Average (low) quality reports. The submission and revision process was great and timely. Submitted a really cool COVID-19 theory and emperical paper. Rejected on pretty poor grounds by an associate editor. One report was very constructive and helped improve the qualitiy of the paper. Reports were sound and improved the paper substantially. Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic. 1 positive and 1 negative report - Editor rejected. Desk rejected in a few days. Helpful and honest reviews. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. Terrible editor. ), Vienna University of Economics and Business, Ceccarelli (Zurich/Maastricht), Pitkjrvi (Aalto), Assistant Professor in Labor, Migration, and Racial Capitalism, Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario), Gallant (Toronto), Sullivan (Yale), Cui (UPenn), Choi (Wisconsin-Madison), Kahou (UBC), Hentall-MacCuish (UCL), Babalievsky (minnesota), Moszkowski (Harvard), Hong (Wisconsin-Madison), Pan (UT Austin), McCrary (UPenn), Gutierrez (University of Chicago), Kwon (Cornell), Zillessen (Oxford), Ba (UPenn), Assistant, Advanced Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor of Economics, E0 -- General F3 -- International Finance F4 -- Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Fin. It was a long process but the editor and referees were genuinely helpful. Very good experience. Helpful editor. The editor's comments are not informative. The reason was that the, Andrew Samwick rejected within 2 days, Topic is too speacialized for EL. Editor response, not a fit to the journal, too theory! She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not). Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School, Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO), Majewska (TSE), Seibel (Zurich), Deng (UMD), Lesellier (TSE), Vanhapelto (TSE), Suzuki (PSU), Leroutier (SSE), Lorentzen (BI Oslo), Guigue (CREST), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Bou Sleiman (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Moreno-Maldonado (CUNEF), Khalifa (AMSE), Kondziella (IIES), Merilinen (ITAM); see https://www.helsinkigse.fi/events/category:job-talk, Assistant/Associate/Full Professor - Environmental Economics, Song (USC), Kwon (Cornell), Sileo (Georgetown), Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Hyuk-soo Kwon (Cornell University), Sean McCrary (University of Pennsylvania), Gretchen Sileo (Georgetown), Stephanie Weber (Yale University), Sadhika Bagga (UT Austin), Ricardo Marto (University of Pennsylvania), Martin Souchier (Stanford University). One low quality (taste-based) referee report. Silly comments from AE. Very useful comments from referees. Very good editor recommending a field journal. After waiting for 9 months, I sent an email to the editor asking about the paper status. The referee suggested rejection, and the associate editor agreed. Two sloppy reports, one useful. 2 quality ref reports + brief comments by editor. Unbelievably fast and helpful. The referee checked my citations and offered helpful comments. One very good referee report (I feel he has pubs in AER, JPE) and one useless report (he doesn't know anything about business economics). Way too slow though. And I've recently reviewed a closely related paper for the EER that got a revise-and-resubmit, so you'd think the topic must be interesting enough. One report of 10 lines with one minor comment and the other one, longer but with also minor comments. Job Market. Letter gives no mention of reasons for rejection and even unclear on paper's final status. I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. I suppose if your work is primarily empirical then you'd better do something that's close to the editor's personal interest, otherwise there will always be the criticism that you need more theory. Desk Reject in a Week but it did come with two pages of notes and questions that should help the paper. Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. 2 weeks to desk reject. Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. Very efficient process with explicit timeline. I'm amazed. The comment by the editor in charge was helpful. Fast. Editor realized the mistake and suggested to resubmit after implementing additional revisions (another 2+ months of work). Overall good experience. At the end, I got two reports; one helpful, the other garbage. 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. Desk reject in two days for not being general enough, $132 fee not refunded. One magnificient + one so-so ref report. One paragraph with comments. My fault for not discussing that up front. He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. Just one referee report. Waited for almost a year and sent a couple of emails to the editor; promised us a response in two weeks. one very weird report, asking to cite an unknown WP, from a PhD student One R&R with minor rev, one inscrutable report, and one unfair report with incorrect claims. I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. Poor / no justification for decision. I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. One Referee wrote nonsense, the other was good, the editor added nonsense. Two reports are suggestive but the other one was a low-quality. I do not think that the referee understood my paper. Think about submitting again. Submission fee refund. Xavier Vives rejected the paper after 4 rounds and 2 years based on the recommendation of an incompetent referee who couldn't understand the paper and kept making bogus claims about errors in the analysis or interpretation in every round. Costas Meghir was editor. The editor was not helpful at all. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. Paper sent to an editor with completely different interests. Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. Editor suggested JIE. Fast turn around. Our paper is rejected after receiving one referee report. Fast decision after resubmit. Rogerson very quickly pointed out the paper did not merit publication. Aarhus University, Department of Economics and Business Economics, School of Business and Social Sciences: Eric Hillebrand http://econ.au.dk/job-market-candidates . All comments seem easy to answer. Pretty good experience. Great experience. 4 months with the editor before being sent to referees. Resulted in much better paper. And he did not find the topic interesting. Although the referee comments were in detail some of them were really out of the scope. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. Editor accepted it. The second was more critical. At this point, the editor asked us to review the abstract and the highlights. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect.