Had to email them to speed up the revision process. did not refund the submission fee. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Very good handling of the process. This journal is a scam. Will never submit again. 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!!!). Over 8 weeks for a desk reject due to poor fit for journal. completely ?misread? great referee report, great editor, not so great AE, Two good reports providing many suggestions regarding how I should modify and extend the paper. I do not think that the referee understood my paper. Finally, I have now wothdrawn my paper. In-depth, high quality referee reports. Desk Reject in a Week but it did come with two pages of notes and questions that should help the paper. Very weak reports. May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). I will try in the future. After revising the paper based on the comments of two referees, the Associate editor chimed in with his useless comments to reject the paper. 2nd round interview requests recently sent out which will result in second round of flyouts), Ederer (Toulouse), Beyhum (CREST/ENSAI), Wiseman (Berkeley), Zillessen (Oxford), Seibel (Zurich), De Vera (CEMFI), Laffitte (ULB), Leibniz-Zentrum fr Europische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH Mannheim, Lin William Cong @Cornell sexual harassment, Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Clare Balboni (MIT) Yong Cai (Northwestern), Joel Flynn (MIT), Benny Kleinman (Princeton), Joan Martinez (UC Berkeley), Anh Nguyen (MIT), Agathe Pernoud (Stanford), Roman Rivera (Columbia), Michael Rubens (UCLA), Regina Seibel (Zurich), Natalia Serna (Wisconsin), Christiane Szerman (Princeton), Milena Wittwer (Boston), Hannah Zillessen (Oxford), Althoff (Princeton), Balboni (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Szerman (Princeton), Serna (Wisconsin), Luxembourg Institue of Socio-Economic Research, Assistant Professor in Computational Social Science, Eisfeld (Toulouse), Tiew (Harvard), Woo (Rochester), Sharma (NDS), Sullivan (Yale), Ramos (Harvard), Majewska (Toulouse), Ebrahimi (UBC), Lesellier (Toulouse), Camara (Northwestern), Alba (Toronto), Conlon (Harvard), Bernhardt (Harvard), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), National University of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Aina(Zurich) Ba (UPenn) Bernhardt (Harvard) Cai (Northwestern) Carry(CREST) Chang (Yale) Flynn(MIT) Geddes (Northwestern) Moszkowski (Harvard) Nguyen(MIT) Pernoud(Stanford) Puri(MIT) Rivera(Columbia) Saxena (Harvard) Schuh(Stanford) Souchier(Stanford) Sung (Columbia) Tiew (Harvard) Vitali(UCL) Wiseman (Berkeley), Wong (Columbia), Teng (LUISS), Dimitri Pugachev (INSEAD), Andrey Kurbatov (INSEAD), Felix Wilke (SSE), Uettwiller (Imperial), Sam Piotrowski (Connecticut), Chuck Fang (Wharton), Thomas Grunthaler (Munster), Celine Fei (UNC), Denis Monakov (UCLA), Weiting Hu (Washignton-St. Louis), Valentin Schubert (SSE), Kurbatov, Wilke - declined, Schubert - declined, Piotrowski, Pugachev, Grunthaler - declined, Monakov, Piotrowski (Connecticut), Pugachev (INSEAD), Monakov (UCLA), Kurbatov (INSEAD), Nguyen (MIT), Flynn (MIT), Singh (MIT), Sullivan (Yale), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Sharma (MIT), Qiu (UPenn), Lanzani (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Vergara (UC Berkeley), Wiseman (UC Berkeley), Kroft (Toronto, AP) Kaur (Berkeley AP) Deshpande (Chicago AP) Ryan (Yale AP), Minni (LSE), Otero (UC Berkeley), Pernoud (Stanford), Crews (Chicago), Barone (UCLA), Mills (Princenton), Cai (NW), Jou (UCLA), Rittenhouse (UCSD) Mugnier (CREST) Acquatella (Harvard) Rivera (Columbia) D'Adamo (UCL) Zahra Diop (Oxford), Barone (UCLA), Mills (Princeton), Pellegrina (NYUAD AP), Mugnier (CREST), Beyhum (CREST AP), Deopa (AMSE), Kuang (Cornell), Gordon (Yale), Wang (EUI), Benmir (LSE & Paris Dauphine), Dahis (PUC-Rio AP), Lieber (Chicago), Tebbe (IIES), Ospital (UCLA), DAdamo (UCL), Peking University, Guanghua School of Management, Shen (UCLA), Qiu (Penn), Yang (Princeton), Assistant Professor in Environmental and Resource Economics, Flynn (MIT), Chen (Stanford GSB), Bleemer (Yale), Singh (MIT), Lanzani (MIT), Nguyen (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Sandomirsiy (Caltech), Wang (Stanford GSB), Carry (CREST), Conlon (Harvard), Vergara (Berkeley), Moscona (MIT), Souchier (Stanford), Bleemer (Yale), Carry (CREST), Chen (Stanford GSB), Seck (Harvard), Singh (MIT), Bernhard Dalheimer (Trade & Macroeconomics); Laura Montenovo (State & Local Finance); Guy Tchuente (Quantitative Methods in Spatial Analysis), Hannon (Cambridge), Austin (Oxford Said), Altmann (Oxford), Wangner (TSE), Rudov (Princeton), Uettwiller (Imperial), Leroutier (SSE), de Sousa (UC3M), Pieroni (UAB), Pugachev (INSEAD), Ashtari (UCL), Kim (UCSD), Casella (UPenn), Raja (LSE), Lieber (Chicago), Yang (Duke); see https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sef/events/seminars/, Assistant Professor of Economic Analysis and Policy, Moszkowski (Harvard), Wheeler (Berkeley), Cui (Wharton), Kytomaa (University of Texas at Austin), Sullivan (Yale), Seibel (Zurich), Fleitas (Leuven), Barnes (Berkeley), Lehr (Boston University) https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/AcademicAreas/Seminars, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Wiseman (UC Berkeley), Ferey (LMU), Morazzoni (UPF), Acquatella (Harvard/BU), Diop (Oxford), Eisfeld (TSE), Khalifa (AMSE), Gauthier (CREST), Bodere (NYU), Decker (Zurich), Wang (EUI), Wangner (TSE), Garg (Columbia), Miglino (UCL), Gordon (Yale), Michael Gilraine (NYU), Victor Aguiar (Western), International, public, labor, IO, development, Prasanthi Ramakrishnan (WUSTL), 02/15/2023, Delgado-Vega (UC3M), Castillo Quintana (NYU), Bergeron (USC AP), Slough (NYU, AP), Seck (Harvard), Teso (Northwestern, AP), Bernhardt (Harvard), No offer has been made as of March 3rd, your information is wrong, Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Pauline Carry (CREST), Benny Kleinman (Princeton), Kwok-Hao Lee (Princeton), Jacob Moscona (Harvard/MIT), Sagar Saxena (Harvard), Puri (MIT), Conlon (Harvard), Kleinman (Princeton), Bilal (Harvard AP), Seck (Harvard), Nguyen (MIT), Moscona (MIT), Crews (UChicago), Kleinman (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Moscona (MIT), Grindaker (BI Oslo), Terracciano (SFI), Huebner (UCLA), Taburet (LSE), Azzalini (IIES), Chen (SFI), Morazzoni (UPF), Gopalakrishna (EPFL), Charles (USC Marshall), Monteiro (Kellogg), ; see https://tinyurl.com/4rktwnf6, Minni (LSE), Guige (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Merilainen (ITAM), Carry (CREST), Khalifa (AMSE), Seibel (Zurich), Heath Milsom (Oxford), Carry (CREST); Wiseman (Berkeley); Casella (UPenn); Wu (Rochester); Silliman (Harvard); Morazzoni (UPF); Khalifa (AMSE); Babalievsky (Minnesota); Jha (UBC); Qiu (UPenn). Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. One report was low quality the other was so-so. Quick desk rejection; field journals recommende, Rejected within one week, but useful comments and advice given by editor, Uhlig, justified decison with kind and informed letter from the editor. Amazing experience. Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines). Editor then agreed. Editor do not reply to any query. Bad to useless reports after an unacceptably long response time. Good experience. Also sent some emails to the editors but have no replies. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and about two months in the second round. Referees mixed. Never again! Crappy reports. Referee report was ready within a month after submission. The referees and the editor took ridic, Editor: Heckman; high quality reports, two of the reports were helpful and constructive. In the end, the editor reject the article. Split recommendations, editor decided to reject which is fair enough. Desk-rejected after one week without any substantial or specific comment, apart recommending to submit to a specialist journal. Reasonable motivations for desk rejection provided, Fast desk rejection, poor targeting on my part, desk reject but with useful feedback from AE. Not a great experience! Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Althoff (Princeton), Bolte (Stanford), Cai (Northwestern), Colon (Harvard), Ederer (Toulouse), Kleinman (Princeton), Lanzani (MIT), Morazzoni (UPF), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Mukhin (LSE AP), Nguyen(MIT), Rivera (Columbia), Sandomirskiy (Caltech), Seck (Harvard), Xu (Stanford GSB AP), https://business.uc3m.es/en/seminars Brogger (CBS); Gabriel (Bonn); Karpati (Tilburg); Ballensiefen (St. Gallen); Mazzola (Erasmus); Terracciano (SFI), Morazzoni (UPF), Giocomo Lanzani, Rui Da, Theis Jensen, Antoine Ferey, Arthur Taburet, Pauline Carry, Marta Morazzoni, Clare Balboni, Suzanna Khalifa, Fedor Sandomirsky, Chao Ying, Vishal Kamat, Chen (Stanford GSB), McCrary (Penn), Rigato (Harvard), Guerreiro (NW), Lauletta (UC Berkeley), Castro (Princeton), Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Cai (NW), Crews (Chicago), Reyes (Berkeley), Muoz-Blanco (Trinity College), Amrico (UBC), Chiara Aina (Zurich); Giovanni Morzenti (Bocconi); Nathan Hancart (UCL); Regina Seibel (Zurich); Vasily Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA); Pauline Carry (CREST); Bruno Conte (U Bologna / UAB); Riccardo D'Adamo (UCL); Hugo Freeman (UCL); Jonas Lieber (Chicago); Alistair Macauley (Oxford); Philippe van der Beck (Ecole Polytechnique); Francesco Mazzola (Rotterdam School of Management); Gabriela Stockler (UAB), Victoria Barone (UCLA), Aina (Zurich), Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA), Conte (U Bologna / UAB), Stockler (UAB), Casella (UPenn). Editor is a insecure joke. Overall experience is good. Good experience, even my paper was rejected. We will not be making any further offers this year. While the paper was rejected the referee reports were in-depth and very helpful. Unfair letter from Emi N. Great letters from four referees and three of them are very positive! Surprised at how quickly all went. Very good editor recommending a field journal. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. Very fast and the submission fee is relatively cheap and even cheaper for grad students. Two referee reports very useful, pointing to the same concerns, one of them quite positive and friendly, providing numerous pathways to pursue in the future. It is frustrating to get rejected after convincing the referees. Quick rejection. PhD Candidates in Economics | NBER One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor. On the downside, the time between each of the two rounds of R&R was longish. AER, JPE), but taste a factor. Less than a month for two strong referee reports on a non-experimental paper: useful suggestions and some parts of the paper were obviously not clear enough, although no intractable issues so rejection was disappointing. One referee was OK with almost no comments. Fair process and good report. Nedless to say I got no referee report even after asking. 5 weeks to first response. Armstrong is so much better than Hermalin 6 months for the first R&R (2 referee reports plus a very detailed report from the editor), then 3 months for the 2nd R&R, then the paper was accepted. 2 Reports. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. You can even not see these wordings in Game of Thrones. 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). never submit to this journal again. Very tough report on the first RR, extensive changes suggested, though all feasible and mostly all improved the quality of the paper. Very helpful referee reports. Submitted a taxation paper that was outside of their comfort zone. Kinda pissed. 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. R&R only takes one week. 5 months, disappointing experience. Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. Will not b submitting here again until editorial board changes. One of them was very detailed. Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! Fair enough. Over the past six years, the department has placed a total of 128 graduates in academic, research, and government jobs. Terrible referees. Referees' comments were useful. 3 weeks to desk reject. Minor comments from editor who appears to have at least gotten the gist of the paper. One referee for sure did not read the paper as pointed things which were actually in the paper. took the money. Good experience. Rejected but with excellent reports. Editors reject the paper. Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). Very disappointing experience with the journal and refereeing process. Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. The journal is a joke! Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. In terms of rejections this is probably as good as it gets. Fast and fair. Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. Standard comments, paper's topic just not good enough. Job Market - Economics He is the main contact person for employers who have questions about a candidate's vita . One referee posted two of his own papers including url in the report, one of which was just accepted in the same journal before sending reports. This Rumors site allows only a maximum of 12 months from submission to decision. After about 1 year of wait, the editor decided to reject the submission on the basis of 1 report (2 referees did not respond) that contained only 2-3 lines that already work was done on the topic (although appreciating the empirical analysis). A journal to avoid. 23 hours and 30 minutes after submission, desk reject from Shleifer. One quite short referee report. Three referee reports. reports. Good report. !. Had to withdraw after waiting for nearly a year and a half. Desk reject after 2 months. 2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. But first response took a whole year. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. Editor should know better. 14 days for a desk rejection. Nice when they actually read the paper. Very slow and the reason for rejection was not good enough. A bit slow, but good comments by the referee. one of the requests advanced was indeed something that was dealt with in a specific section of the paper, making me think that the referee quicly skimmed through the paper without proper attention). Think about submitting again. Will submit again.. Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. Editor didn't believe our identification. Obviously, being turned down after a two-year long process and a very extensive revision is bad for a young author. I read on EJMR how clubby and unfortunately British this journal is, but never expected it to be true. I sent in my paper and after 2 emails requesting information about the status of my manuscript, I was asked to be patient. All the referees understood what I did in great detail. Referee says R&R, but editor decides to reject outright. Lowest quality referee reports ever received. You have to earn it! The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. Bigger joke than the article I sent them. The paper was a very good fit though. No reply yet. One positive and one negative report. Extremely disappointed. The model is not in AE's taste. Rejected for not significant enough contribution. Editor offers insightful suggestions as well. They never refunded my fee either. Mediocre assessment from referee with some helpful suggestions. One referee does not follow simple math, immediately assumes the model is wrong and the editor takes his side. Brief, ignorant, editor's letter. I was very grateful despite the rejection. After revise and resubmit, was rejected, Next year, similar article appeared in the journal authored by one of the associate editors. Another one was sharp. Horrible experience. Would surely submit to it again. It's quick, but the reports are really bad and unhelpful. recommended Journal of Development Economics. Reason for rejection was editor thought paper belonged in `less selective' journal. Horrible experience. Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. Will never submit to this journal again. I stopped reading after that). Still, was super fast and allows to improve the paper. Harrington and the anonymous reviewer. One good report, one bad report. Very efficient, good reports. First decision in 2 months. Board Threads Posts Last Post; Economics Job Market Threads. Worst experience so far. Overall, great experecience! An uprising journal so I recommend people to publish here. Desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Decent referee reports, good turnaround time. Disappointing. Referee said he just didn't like the paper. Slow. Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. reports, the reports were all nice an constructive. Referee report was positive and recommended R&R. Very useful comments from referees. This journal is a bit hell to make it attractive to authors in order to get their money easily. 1 months for desk reject. Fast process, but very poor reviewer report. No specific comment from the editor. Very efficient process. Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. Demanding but helpful referee reports. One not very helpful/professional report. Nice words from Editor. Quick desk rejection from the Editor (about a week). Unbelievably fast and helpful. Very slow process but happy to get accepted. This journal is a joke. Good points, though, and overall a good experience. Very disappointed at the editor who made a decision based on such a low quality report. First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. Very slow. Comments were useful and recommended a tier of journal to try next. Great experience. 4 months for a desk rejection based on what it appears to be a very superficial reading of the abstract. Baltagi desk rejected it in 2 days for being lack of novelty. Seemed to have an agenda, as though I offended his work. I resubmitted in January, and the paper was accepted with minor revisions in March. Therefore, we have decided not to review the paper. Job Postings | The Econometric Society My paper was not complicated and could have been rejected in 2-3 months easily. Editor said he appreciated the previous paper but seemed to reject this one (which is probably better) since it fits in with a similar literature. Garbage. Reviewers gave substantive comments and significantly improved the paper. Overall, good experience. The third one very general and less useful. Insightful comments by both referees and editor. Editor read the paper and deskrejected in less than a week. Too us more than a month to revise and still had doubts. Finally very well handled by the editor. The other referee recommended revision. Should have read the comments here about how badly run this journal is. 3 months to R&R; 2 weeks for second round; 1 week for final acceptance. Incredible experience: one of the referee report told us that a working paper was published on almost the same subject (and justifies our rejection) but this working paper was published 5 months after our submission ! rejection after 9 months without any useful comments. One helpful (though very demanding) report, the second so-so. Rare experience where every round made paper much better. It took 18 months after first revision. Claudia Sahm - Wikipedia Initially submitted on 2 Aug, we got the rejection six month later. Some comments from the editor, some are useful. First response was very good (and positive), still there was a long waiting afterwards. Lost more than 6 months for nothing. Referee misread the paper, and hammered us on points that we were not making. Split reports but very clear advice from editor. Desk reject after one month, no comments just standard letter, Quick rejection (12 days), with no comments on the paper, Rodrik rejected 10 days after submission, advised a field journal. Would definitely recommend it even if it's a longshot. Desk rejected in 2 days with a very short report "better fit for a finance journal". Suggested different journals, very efficient. 2 decent reports. 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. He recommended me to send it to a more specialized field journal. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. Several rounds of mildly encouraging R&R reports, then paper was lost. Complete waste of time and money. Reject and resubmit. Rejected in 10 days. Came back to my office at 12:05. Accepted after revision within 1 month. Desk rejected, but after consultation with a referee who provided a mini-report. Fast desk reject. 1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. 3 detailed reports, and a summary from Hendren explaining the rejection. Unfortunately the paper is rejected but I hope the reports help you improve the paper for another journal. Editor just pointed at reports and made no obvious effort to think about the paper. Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. Decent reports, rejecting for fair reasons. Good turnaround time. Fair decision and process, 2 mildly positive reviews, editor shot it down. took 7 months for 1 referee report, but the R&R was quick. Quite fast I'd say, but comments were simple. 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. There is only one report called review number 2! Lengthy, in-depth reports. Waited over 9 month for a half-page low quality report. Super efficient handling by Prof. Sarte. But the editor read the paper, and recommends Econometrica or JET or TE, Katz needed less time to skim the paper and offer a few good comments than I needed to write a one-sentence cover letter, It is a Finance paper. good reports. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. Rejected within 4 days with a decent explanation. Desk-rejected after ten days. Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. Desk reject after two weeks. The other referee was very positive but the editor followed the negative report. Job Market. Reviews were not particularly helpful. 3 reports. had no economic relevance and was not worth being sent out to a referee. Very good referee reports. Referee report was short and commented on halve of the paper. Some reviewers disappeared after the first review, the editors could't even find an alternative, and the comments were not assessed critically by the editors due to an editorial change. Bad experience. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Desk rejected in 1 week. At the end, I got two reports; one helpful, the other garbage. According to the editor, the paper has some merit, but is too specialized for EL. Helpful reports in general. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. Editor was Mogde. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. In the first three, the referees took 3 months and tehn 9 months to take care of comments. Filter by advisor. Was advised to submit to a field journal, Good reports, efficient process, we just didn't meet Katz's "general interest" standard, Surprised didn't get a desk reject. Good for knowing what people didn't like, but not clear how to improve. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. this journal is very inefficient in processing submissions and re-submissions. 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. Horrible experience. One is a R&R type, and the other referee said that he was not interested in the topic, nothing about the details of the paper. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. "Referee report" Biggest joke on Earth!! Great comments from the referees and editor. It details the following: Preparing to go on the job market. Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. Editor suggested that paper was better suited for JDE (LOL). One brief report. Editor identity unknown. AE editor rejects a paper that passed the desk at much better journals. Weak reports with many assertaions that were simply untrue. Reasonable comments from the referee, extremely fast and efficient process. From here on, AEJs are the way to go outside top 5. Comments were not really helpful. Fast. This journal is completely a piece of junk. Also suggested 3 very good field Journal. Rejected in 10 days with no comments. Awesome experience. Took 6 weeks. Very efficient. One reviewer seemed to think a clean accept, one was 'not really convinced'. SVAT is a full service firm in the areas of bookkeeping, accounting, tax and small . four reports. Competent referee reports, although one of them extremely hostile. Quality of editing going down. REHO is a scam, not a journal. Almost two months for desk reject, no submission refund. Very Fast. May have a good chance at a higher ranked outlet but if considered speed and diversification then it was a good and correct decision to submit here. One very positive and helpful report, one negative report. Two very thin referee reports. Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow. Special call. Comments are constructive. Mark Watson was the editor. Very good experience. The editor claimed that himself and another associate editor read the paper. Editor Chandra rejected with one ref report. Two days to desk reject, no comments, just boilerplate. 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 referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. Super fast handling by Pro. Unacceptable waiting time. Bar-Isaak is the editor in charge (much better than others like nocke). Got a slow desk rejection from LB telling me/us to cite someone I cited in the intro. Update to previous pending post. Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! Editor said he is sorry for the wait still waiting for the outcome of the second round. Reject because apparently would not fit in their journal. But I'm not in any club and not at an elite school (by choice). Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. Two referee reports and one report from the associate editor. Apparent that editor read the paper. One excellent referee report, and one decent one. Efficient process. A bit slow for a 2000 words paper. Comments like "I do not understand the findings of this study" show that the journal is not what it used to be. 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. Two are helpful, one is less useful. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Two competent reviewers, one slightly hostile, one friendly. FYI: Your editor sucks). In really sped things up. The journal originally sent me the referee's letter to the editor instead of the referee report - took almost a week to actually get the report. Very fast, two high quality referee reports. Great experience! desk rejected in 3 days. Very slow. Overall good experience. Good reports. Withdrew my paper after 8 months of no contact from Editor, referee, etc. Prof. Sushanta Mallick handles the paper. One positive one negative. Excellent editorial service from Bruno Biais. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. I am not sure the referee knows the topic area well enough. Desk reject in two days for not being general enough, $132 fee not refunded. Giles is a great editor. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. This particular group controlling urban economics now will not let any differing view go through AER and JUE. Editor provided quick and fair comments why the paper is not suitable for the journal. The paper is accepted in another journal now. Revision accepted after one day. things slowed down because of covid. Three good reports and fair decision. less than 2 weeks, recommended field journal. The rejection was fine but took too long for a desk reject. Good to be fast, but quality of feedback should be taken care of more at this journal. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. Desk rejection by QJE does not convey the quality of the paper. I sent an email after 5 months of submission and another after 6 months. Desk reject after 2 months! Would submit again. very fast response and useful comments from a referee. However, the quality of the report is very high and it helps improve the paper a lot. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. The outcome (referee rejection) was acceptable but 5 month waiting is a large waste of time! Felt somewhat subjective. The AE's letter was useful, although no suggestion what to try next. Editor claimed to have two reports but gave me only one. suggest some field journals.
How Old Was Johnny Carson When He Retired, Articles E