econ job market rumors wiki

Good experience overall, only took 2 weeks, two short reports, one very useful. Referee cites one crucial assumption to kill the paper, but the paper does not make that assumption, and clearly explains it. Massive work. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. I urged the editor to give me reports 3 months after the initial submission. Very good and useful referee reports. Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. Desk rejection (standard email). Reason cited: weak paper. But overall very very slow process. Very efficient indeed!!!!!!! happy with outcome. I withdrew the manuscript and will never submit here again. The referee did not understand the basic assumption of the model. Desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. I read on EJMR how clubby and unfortunately British this journal is, but never expected it to be true. Empty report. Quick, very good feedback. Really quick response and decent referee report. also received comments from the old reviewer that were better than the first review. Not so many comments; recommended two very good field journals. Then again, it only took a couple of weeks to get the rejection. Editor read the paper, added some comments of her own. Another one was sharp. Will never submit again to ER. Great experience! Submitted August 14, 2015. Liked the paper but contribution too small. Despite being so tough, all comments were fair and refs wrote great reports that dramatically improved the paper. Not a particularly good experience, constructive reports, editor had read the paper and gave additional comments, One bad/objectively false report, one useful report. Great comments from the referees and editor. The reason was that the, Andrew Samwick rejected within 2 days, Topic is too speacialized for EL. get first response in 28 days. Seems largely like the referee just didn't like it and the editor wanted there to be more significant results (publication bias at its best). Cool editor. Very different than my past experience. The referee checked my citations and offered helpful comments. Recommended. Will submit again. Harold Cole was excellent as editor. Excellent and helpful comments from both referees and the editor. Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). At least the fee is refunded. Good comments. The editor decided to reject, I am not in the club. Reject. However, it seems the process is one editor first decide whether to send to referee or not but a second editor makes the final decision (William Kerr)? Accepted, no referee reports. From here on, AEJs are the way to go outside top 5. Negative report is pretty bad. Terribly disappointing experience. All good, minor additions were suggested. One report very solid and useful, another (two-paragraph one) looks confusing. 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. Editor makes no attempt to reconcile conflicting reports or, One good referee report. In short, he left us only one option: not to resubmit. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. Poor / no justification for decision. Very bad experience. Not general interest enough. Desk reject within a few days. And once that was done, he wanted us to rewrite the article. No surprising, but referee report was sloppy and incorrect. You needed 2 months to tell me that? Seemed like a very long time to only receive one referee report. Very short to the point referee report. Editor rejected based on that. Here is all I received: "I regret to inform you that as part of a pre-screening process applied to all submitted manuscripts to the JDE, I have read your paper and have decided not to put it into the regular review process. recommended Journal of Development Economics. writing? Overall, not bad experience. Useful reports, good summary by editor. Good process. Referees asked for reasonable stuff. Pretty sure the editor didn't even read the paper. Job Market | Department of Economics | Virginia Tech Amazing. This guy really needs to not be a referee if he can not do a thorough job in actually reading paper. The referee's main criticism was like "they argued that A is the main point, which is weak. Very quick response. Fair decision. The first note of the referee claimed that I didn't do something I clearly did. Constructive and very detailed referee comments improved the paper. Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. Will submit again.. Good communication and seemed very efficient. But the discipline should find another way. Although the other referee was positive, editor rejected it. Good experience. Not recommended. Getting a reference to AEJ Applied was worth it. Smooth experience, although a bit slow in getting to the paper (quick when they actually did). Fair rejection. Duration: 2 years. It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. said it was a matter of fit. Crappy journal with crappy editor. Waste of $100. For three months the editor has not assigned referees! quick and clear communication with editor. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, Ore. Nearly 600 will lose their jobs. Took some time due to lots of things to revise, but all the requests were fair. Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. Accepted after two rounds of revisions. Journal response was quick. Editor and editorial staff excellent. Basically max 3-month turnaround from their side at any stage. editor(s) provided good comments too. Desk reject in two days for not being general enough, $132 fee not refunded. This is a wiki for tracking searches in various categories for academic (i.e. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. almost useless and the editor is too slow. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. One referee read the paper line by line and gave constructive comments. One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. Minor changes, though. Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. Nice experience!!! The referee completely misunderstood a *very* basic primary school model and then went on to criticize and complain about the empirical results. Applying for academic jobs. 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. The second editor rejected it. Yet editor made some good comments. Not belonging to the club implies rejection. The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. (Serious) are you actually worried about AI alignment? Economics Job Some warm words from the editor. One report was very useful and of very good quality, the other was of good quality but not very useful. Apparently the assigned coeditor left and paper got stuck. Pleasant experience. The letter from the editor suggests that he/she did not have a firm grasp of the paper. Many thanks to the editor for most constructive comments. With hindsight, I got much more out of submitting this paper to TE. Quick acceptance after revision. 6 months after that paper online. Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it. Rejected for not have a theoretical contribution. Two very good reports, one probably written by the editor. No reply to my e-mail. Inquired about my submission after 7 months, got answer that revision time "totally depends on the reviewers". Fields: Applied Microeconomics, Labor Economics, Quantitative Macroeconomics, Development. Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. Editor should have told him to take a hike much earlier, especially when other refs suggested accept. Only have issues with one of the reviewers. At every round, it took them only 2 months to respond back. Which is BS because paper on the same topic was published a couple of months earlier in EJ. One helpful (though very demanding) report, the second so-so. Good report with relevant comments which will be useful if publication of this study is pursued further. REHO is a scam, not a journal. One very good report, 6 pages long. Desk reject within 14 hours(!!!). Interesting use of a referee's time. I'd submit there again in the future. Reports are not great. Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. And the whole process took us 8 months. very efficient process and useful reports from editor and referess. Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. 3 reports, very quick. Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. two positive reports and one strongly negative report; the editor Andrew Street gave me a R&R; after I spent one month writing a 30-page response, the negative referee still argued against my paper based on his misunderstanding of my paper; the editor finally chose to reject my paper based on the comments of this referee without careful reading. They never refunded my fee either. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. Also gave a lengthy extension. Not a good fit! I don't know what to add. Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. Waste of time. 3rd review was pending. I wish my coauthors would not be too sad being rejected. One ref report with extremely constructive criticisms. Desk reject in 4 hours. Desk reject after 2 months. Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. Two referees. Asim I. Khwaja editor, Two out of three referee reports were good one was much less. Editor sat on completed reports for 3 months before making a decision. EER to toilet, the editors are clueless. Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. Recommended field journals Clueless editor thinks results are of narrow interest. Total 6 months. They have not released it, sorry. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. One referee with very helpful reports. interesting and polite reports. Very quick response. Very fast and professional referee reports. Remarkable coincidence. Despite perceptions they do desk reject. 2 months for a generic desk rejection with not 1 signle comment on the paper. Appreciate the quick turnaround. Bad experience. Comments were not very helpful. Three very constructive referee reports that help improving the quality of the paper. The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected. However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. Good experience, Revision accepted by editor within two days after re-submission. Also revisions handled quite efficiently! Ph.D. First report provided helpful insights, second - only half page of general comments. !. Referee claims no revisements were made after substantial revisements were made and detailed. Economics Job Market. Not much to complain about. 1 report, minor issues, rejected. One excellent report, one mediocre report. I wrote the editor but nothing changed. 3 months to R&R; 2 weeks for second round; 1 week for final acceptance. The editor said that referee is an expert in this field. Secodn editor waited almost 6 weeks after receiving the referee reports. Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE. but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. 2 referee reports. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. Quickest desk rejection ever experienced. Ever. The journal is higher than B. Avoid at all costs.. Desk rejected with 1 sentence after 2 months. Overall great experience. The quality of the report was disappointing. Comments were helpful. Two referee reports, one good and constructive and the other so-so. Referee reports were lenthy and very useful. is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? But editor rejects. Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. Took 4 months to report that the article was not a good fit and return without reports. I am making revisions. Good report. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. Rejected within one day. Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. One very thorough that discussed on every paper point.Good experience, out of scope for this journal, although the most cited paper in this journal also addresses the same research problem, Bad experience. editor obviously read the paper (indicated by reference to appendix figure in the letter); nice and helpful comments. contribution is not enough. 6 months was a lot to wait for one good report though Good feedback. The journal is a joke! Quick response from referees and editor. None of the criticism was fatal and most was stylistic. However, the quality of the report is very high and it helps improve the paper a lot. No further comment from the editor. Extremely valuable referee reports and advices from the editor. Actually, it was overall positive. Completely unacceptable. I have no clue who the referee wanted to impress, maybe the editor? Excellent reports. Two reports are suggestive but the other one was a low-quality. Ok, experience if it wouldnt be for the 11 months. Departament | Facultat d'Economia i Empresa - Job Market Candidates Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. Then took about 14 months to be come out in print. New editor apologized for the delay and handled the rejection quickly. Handling editor still rejects for unclear reasons; very frustrating, but at least fairly timely. Good experience overall, took more than 1 year to get one referee report. inquiry after 6 month: "several referees invited but still no reports", rejected after 9 month: "sent the paper to four reviewers but only received two reports". Main editor Wilson takes care of it. Dislike for the computational results for no good reason. Editor suggested alternative outlets. Constructive and very specific. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. Ass editor wrote some useful comments. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. Within a week, Laura Schechter clearly went through the paper and give it a thought with a couple of helpfull comments. One review was good, and helped to improve the paper, the other one (recommended rejection) was raising many peripheral issues. One nasty and not helpful review, but two others were very constructive. professional. In doubt, Spier decided to reject the paper. General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,806) Micro Job Rumors (15,245) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,027) China Job Market (103,534) Desk reject after two weeks. Great experience. Glad that they didn't waste my time. Editorial board apparently liked the paper, but found it not sufficiently related to population economics. Particularly, one of the referees seemed like he didn't read a single word past the intro. editing team is real class act. Paper eventually got accepted at higher ranked journal (!). Fast and uninformative. Coming off of a failed R&R at a higher ranked journal. 1 paragraph of superficial non-descriptive comments from each ref, One week to desk reject with no comment at all. Recommended rejection. One decent and one sloppy report, 1 good report, 1 bad one, decent turnaround time. Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help. The time was not long (bit less than 10 weeks), the outcome was what is normal in this profession (Referee rejection). It was clear that the referees read the paper and provided appropriate comments. Referee wrote a short report with easily implementable suggestions, suggesting revision. I dont care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. After that Editor took 2 months to answer positively to my R&R. The paper was under minor revisions. The results just didn't fit their priors. Desk rejected after one day due to poor fit. Desk Rejected after 2 days. 2 months with almost no answer, although the journal claims desk rejections are within days. others ref reports okay. Will submit again. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates | Economics Department Waited over 9 month for a half-page low quality report. After one round of revision, two of the three reviewers accepted the paper and one requested at best minor revision. Reviewers made many incorrect comments and almost no useful comments, editor straight up said didn't read the paper, but reviewers are negative so reject. The paper is now much stronger. The other is constructive but not as good. superficial comment. Two referee reports were really good. Quick, professional, very acceptable decision. Editor was very reasonable. Really improved the paper. Reminded several times and after waiting 1 year got one referee report. Editor was great (helpful, insightful, truthful). Lorentzen (BI Norway), Lieber (Chicago), Lyngse (Copenhagen), Ststad (PSE), Osun (Maryland), Majewska (Toulouse), Nord (EUI), Sverud (Copenhagen), Zillessen (Oxford), Carry (CREST), Airaudo (Carlos III), See https://www.economics.ku.dk/Calendar/seminars/, Shunsuke Tsuda (Brown), Catherine van der List (UBC), Victor Pouliquen (Oxford), Evgeny Yakovlev (NES), Andreas Ziegler (Amsterdam), Valerio Pieroni (UAB), Thomas Brzustowski (LSE), Assistant/Associate/Full Professor-Ag and Applied Economics, University of Georgia (Terry College of Business), Thereze (Princeton); Lee (Princeton); Geddes (Northwestern); Vitali (UCL); Crews (Chicago); Cai (Northwestern); Kang (Stanford GSB); Bodere (NYU), Bodere (NYU), Cai (Northwestern), Thereze (Princeton), AP of Economics at Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan Ross School of Business, Serna (Wisconsin), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Qiu (Penn), Geddes (Northwestern), Altmann (Oxford), Kleinman (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Kahou (UBC) Kim (Penn) Holz (Northwestern) Holz (Chicago Harris) Wang (Rochester) Arbour (Toronto) Lee (Chicago Harris) Wasser (Cornell) Robinson (UCSB), Development, Political Econ, Applied Micro, Lecturer (Assistant Professor), Senior Lecturer and/or Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Yes- some girl accepted offer then took another job, Aina (Zurich), Bertazzini (Oxford), pires (berkeley), oliveira (berkeley), schief (brown), uccioli (MIT), sartre (brown), Sartre (Brown), Bertazzini (Oxford), Uccioli (MIT), Skoda (Zurich), De Vera (CEMFI), Sui (Rochester), Aina (Zurich), Ghersengorin (PSE), Hancart (UCL), de Carvalho (UBC), Gavan (UPF), Milson (Oxford), Schneider (UZH), Vattuone (Warwick), Herstad (Chicago), von Carnap (IIES), Lorentzen (BI), Altmann (Oxford); See https://tinyurl.com/mryuahhm, Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford), Sung (Columbia), Lanteri (Duke), Hui (LSE), Nord (EUI), Cruces (UC3M), Williams (Yale), Marto (Penn), Trouvain (Michigan), Sturm (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton); Lanzani (MIT); Cai (Northwestern);Guerreiro (Northwestern); Nord (EUI); Ederer (TSE); Starck (Brown); Bellue (Mannheim); Diop (Oxford); Banchio (Stanford GSB); Pernoud (Stanford); Saxena (Harvard); Souchier (Stanford); Vitali (UCL); Sharma; Serna (Wisconsin), Wheeler (UC Berkeley), Bagga (UT Austin), Gutierrez (Chicago), Szerman (Princeton), Crews (Chicago), Nord (EUI), Peng (Penn), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), University of Rochester (Simon Business School), Arkhangelsky (CEMFI AP), Bai (Michigan AP), Pouliot (Chicago Harris AP), Chang (Yale), Cai (Northwestern), https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/index.php/index/research/seminars?dateRange=past&seriesId=0, Sarah Robinson (UC Santa Barbara), Justin Wiltshire (UC Berkeley), Katherine Rittenhouse (UC San Diego), Christopher Mills (Princeton), Eduardo Medina Cortina (UIUC), Arielle Bernhardt (Harvard), Jenya Kahn-Lang (Berkeley), Katherine Riitenhouse (UCSD), Gina Li (Stanford), Stephanie Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Flynn (MIT), Wang (Stanford), Lu (Stanford), Leombroni (Stanford), Seth (LBS), Singla (LBS), Ptashkina (UPF) Sileo (Georgetown) Gutirrez (Chicago) Chang (Yale) Shen (UCLA) Kohlhepp (UCLA) Cai (Northwestern) Morazzoni (UPF) Wong (Columbia) Carry (CREST) Nimier-David (CREST) Chen (Stanford GSB) Bodr (NYU) Tintelnot (Chicago AP) Beaman (Northwestern AP) Lamadon (Chicago AP) Kang (CMU AP), Risk and Insurance at Wisconsin School of Business, Rao (UCSD), Wiseman (Berkeley ARE), Rexer (Wharton), Giaccobasso (UCLA), Yucheng Yang (Princeton), Sofonias Korsaye (SFI), Matteo Leombroni (Stanford), Yes, 2/05/2023 according to EconTrack (who?

Justina Road Shooting, Snhu Financial Aid Disbursement Schedule 2020, Articles E