A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. Pleasant experience overall. Quick turnaround, helpful comments, will submit again, Desk rejected in less than a week. no negative comments, just say that the contribution is not big enough for Econometrica, which is completely understandable. 2 referee reports: 1 so-so and 1 extremely shitty. Average turnaround time was rather long for AEJ standards. Nice experience. Almost two months for desk reject, no submission refund. Decision was made in 45 days. 84 W Santa Clara Street, Suite 770, San Jose, CA 95113. I got two rounds of R&R. Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. Obviously an inevitably subjective decision, but given this, the handling was very fair. Smooth process. Timely, informed, and critical. Very efficient. It appears they don't like overly technical papers (it's an interdisciplinary journal so depends on who the editor is at the time - if not an economist, then avoid). International Journal of Finance and Economics. Got accepted after 2nd round. Rejected with 2 reviews on the grounds of insufficient contribution to literature. Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. Fair decision. We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. Think about submitting again. I really appreciated the clarity the editor provided in helping to navigate the referee reports. Overall good experience. Our claims were supported. Not clear if the paper was even read. Job Market Paper: Sorting in the Marriage Market: The Role of Inequality and its Impact on Intergenerational Mobility. At this point, the editor asked us to review the abstract and the highlights. Editor rejected without comments. But the comments helped. Expected a lot better from this journal. editor is dumber than a second coat of paint. All good, minor additions were suggested. Water Research Manager (Project Manager) Job Description Linkedin.com. Job Postings | The Econometric Society Very smooth process in general, no complaints. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( [email protected]). It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. Generally not 5-star experience but worth submitting there if your paper is relevant. Currently under R&R at a journal with the same ranking. Terrible report. Extremely fast. Very bad reports from non economists. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). Unanswered letters to editor by the 6th and 12th months after submission, only got reply after getting in touch to editorial office. Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. A second round of minor revision was requested. However, they want to reject whatever you want. Some reasons given. Both reviews helpful - one very extensive. Said the contribution was too small, which I accept. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. One month for the desk reject. No referee reports, just got notified I was accepted. Economics Job Market Rumors - Forum for Economists Took way too long prob will avoid in future. submitted half a year ago. Paper sent to an editor with completely different interests. Desk reject in 7 days. Candidate in Management. Comments just so-so. it was in 2016. Desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Neither felt that the paper was a good fit for an urban journal. Letter from the editor not so much informative. Desk rejected in 25 minutes. Two weeks and they not assigned a manuscript ID number. Extremely outdated econometric "suggestions" and an overall lack of understanding. Otherwise fine. 1 month for R&R, 1 week for acceptance after revision submitted. Editor suggested alternative outlets. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. Didn't fit journal aims well enough - very courteous rejection with suggestions on where to try next, the issue did not fit no justifications. J.E. Hyejin Park Extremly disappointing for a journal which claims to be the number one field journal. 3rd review was pending. Referee misread the paper, and hammered us on points that we were not making. 1.5 weeks overall, Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics. Technical issues handled by non-experts. Editor does not made any comment, probably has not read the paper at all. All reports were useful and very demanding. Bad experience waiting for and ultimately receiving two relatively useless reviews for a comment/note (paper < 10 pages including title/abstract page, references, and tables). Worked butt off to respond to them. Fair and quick process. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 7 months waiting for one poor referee report rejecting the paper for an unwarranted wording issue. But then, it took 20 weeks until we got the acceptance. First round of referee reports obtained in another 2 months. Good reports, but what a punch in the gut. Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. Editorial processes were very fast. Very satisfied with the experience. Secondary: Applied Macroeconomics and International Economics. Referee said he just didn't like the paper. Hello! Not cool, 6 pages report trying to find reasons to reject, another report was copy paste from 3 previous submissions stating I dont belive your assumptions. My first submission in AE and it is the best experience ever. Argued lack of fit, dispite publishing a paper on the subject a few months ago, one very short useless report in seven months, 5 months + 125USD for a referee rejection with a report of about 21 lines.SHAME. One of the worst experience I have ever had. Too slow for a short paper, AE spent 4+ months to write very short and useless report. 1 positive but short & useless, 1 incompetent negative who didn't even understand the historical topic. Very fast, two high quality referee reports. Editor mentioned additional points and suggested a field journal as an alternative. 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). Good process. The paper was not sent to the referee but instead the editor said it was reviewed by the editorial board. A colleague from another school submitted there and also had to wait a long time for very poor quality referee reports. Expected better from an AEJ. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. Form letter from the editor. The third one very general and less useful. Horner is a disaster! very efficient. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. Valid rejection. Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. Quite fast luckily. Second round 4 months before acceptance. This journal still has the word economics in its tile, please stop asking clueless marketing types to referee! I had a paper that was to be revised and the review was very positive. Waited for almost a year and sent a couple of emails to the editor; promised us a response in two weeks. Received 3 high-quality referee reports within 4 months. Comments were helpful. 2nd round 2 months. Clearly scanned the paper, deemed not general enough, and recommended other outlets. Very clear about what was needed for revision and the 2nd round was only minor comments. Job market wiki Economics Job Market Rumors Pretty good experience. Environment, Development, and Sustainability. It's the kind of disappointment that makes you stop caring about research. Seems the process is very efficient with the new editorial board, Fantastic experience: fast and very good comments. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. Too narrow-minded editor. Many thanks to the editor for most constructive comments. Horrible experience, late response, useless report. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). Next time, I will come back with a vip or friend of the editorial team to have positive a priori. True, no time wasted, just the $125 submission fee. Referee comments greatly improved the paper, editor was awesome. Apparently JHE considers itself general interest. Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Actually, it was overall positive. Pretty well run, can't complain. It was crazy to wait that long for a dek rejectionwas not happy at alland there was not any comments or any reviews at allbasically waited for nothing for 5 months.. 3 weeks for a desk reject. One referee was in favour of a strong R&R, the other recommended rejection on the basis of mathematical error, the AD seconded the latter. is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? Terrible editor. The editor claimed that himself and another associate editor read the paper. They will help to improve the paper. The second round of review only took 3 weeks. Third referee was slow and did not provide public report (he caused the delay). SIX MONTHS for a desk reject. Crappy journal with crappy editor. There are some great papers in the journal; I would think it would get a higher impact factor. 50% of Americans believe US should support Ukraine 'as long as it takes R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. Thorough ref reports with good comments. Not general interest enough. Multiple inquiries with a response: "once the reviews are completed, the editor will make a decision". As we addressed all issues in between and it better fitted EL, it was accepted without revision. One positive report, one negative. Not general interest enough. RR time was only 2 weeks, no bullshit nitpicking. Despite the rejection, a very fair process with constructive comments and a fast response. Given all that has happened with JPE in recent years, don't think I will waste my time and money with them again. Reports were okay but in the end not that helpful. ", Fast response. Very good experience. Good. Recommended. Kneller is a very good editor, the experience has been very good. desk rejected. Professional co-editor and referee. Unacceptable waiting time. No letter from the editor. One magnificient + one so-so ref report. Received two referee reports and a review from the associate editor within two months of initial submission. the ?Nash? After 10+ years in a research institution, counless submission, countless rejections, and some papers published in highly ranked journal, this was definitely my worst experience ever. One referee provided lots of helpful comments and even some ideas for future research. Fair decision. Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. Good experience and good editorial team. To avoid. Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper. One referee with very helpful reports. Paper got desk rejected. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee. quick turnaround and helpful referee report. Focus too narrow for a general interest journal. Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. Editor Ian Walker gave us a fantastic referee report. Sick comments and rejection for no reasons. very good experiencefast and helpful comments from the co-editor and two refereesAverage time between the submission and response is about 1.5 months, well run journal. Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). 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? Very fast and professional referee reports. Relatively high submission fee. Desk reject in 1 week. After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. But 10 months is too long. The editor read the paper carefully to make the decision. very fast response and useful comments from a referee. In all the rejection was fair. One referee reports is only 2 short paragraphs long and completely wrong. Editor (Rogerson) makes some encouraging comments but cannot hide the fact that the referees were not really that enthusiastic about the paper, even if they couldn't find much to criticize. Editor cites two but only sends one. 5 days, paper is too specific for QJE, Helpman suggested another journal. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. For a short paper, it took quite a longtime for deskreject without a single sentence relating to the paper. Appreciate fast review and efficient process. One of the best run journals in macro. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. report and a couple of pretty good ones. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. Almost happy. Good experience as far as rejections go. Waste of $100. Reminded several times and after waiting 1 year got one referee report. reject after 3 months. No reimburment of submission fee ($130). She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. Helpful comments from referees and editor. Overall efficient and fair but demanding process. I am making revisions. Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. Avoid at all costs. two referees with constructive comments, one referee rather negative and no substantial comment. Currently in R&R. The model is not presented in a clear and intelligible way. The paper was accepted quickly after revision. Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper. Highly recommended. Fast desk reject but zero useful information. Editor was fair, his decision was understandble, but 6 months is clearly too long. Referee reports were of high quality. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal.