econ job market rumors wiki

Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. It is a very demanding R&R and we revise the paper a lot according to the suggestions, but it is worthwhile. One referee report excellent. 1 extremely helpful report and 2 so so ones. I haven't received the first response yet. The referee is clearly not up to the task. Job Market. The referee was ideologically opposed to our paper more than anything else. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. 4 weeks for first response. Resulted in much better paper. In a typical year, every MIT Economics PhD graduate finds a job. Extremely fast and thoughtful. In general, it is difficult to follow the derivations due to a lack of intuitive explanations. Comments weren't helpful, but at least they didn't waste my time. Two very good reports, one probably written by the editor. Editor read paper and gave good comments, but ultimately rejected. The reason given was something along the lines of well we can't read everything. 2 days to get a desk rejection. Great experience! Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. Editor had a "confidential" report that he wouldn't share, and on the basis of that chose rejection. Desk rejected within a week. Rejected in 10 days. as stated ("within 24 hours") we got an editorial reject claiming the lack of interest for a broad audience. That is not cool. Contribution not general enough suggests Review of Economics and Statistics. Working on my R&R now. Three weeks for a desk reject. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. Generic rejection. Slow as hell. Would try again. This Rumors site allows only a maximum of 12 months from submission to decision. Liran Einav 650-723-3704 leinav@stanford.edu. Very constructive comments from Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) and referees. Report was fair and helpful and editor's letter was kind. Very good referee reports. Not very helpful reports. !. One furstrating assertion by the editor. Referee clearly didn't read the paper carefully. Only one referee report. Passed the desk (Turner) in ten days. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. Reviews not very helpful as it seems like psychologists reviewed it. More than 16 weeks!! The Graduate School of Business at Columbia University is seeking to hire one or more tenure-track faculty members in the area of economics, including those in macroeconomics, open economy macroeconomics, or macroeconomic aspects of international trade, applied microeconomics, organizational economics, industrial organization, behavioral . No refund. 2 pretty decent referee reports.Of course one said "the quality of the model and empirical evidence is below the standards for a journal like the QJE. Mentioned that they do not consider theoretical papers. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the 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. What takes so long? Took almost 3 months for the first reports. Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal. one week to accepted with minor changes. a 2 paragraph referee report that was not particularly helpful - at least the turnaround time was fast - might as well have been a desk rejection, Very low quality reports. Admittedly, they must receive a lot of submissions, but that does not excuse this. Highly recommend this journal for a paper that wouldn't make it to top 5. $65 down the drain! The second one was a "consultation by telephone" but no feedback to us. Ultimately fair. no negative comments, just say that the contribution is not big enough for Econometrica, which is completely understandable. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. The editor did not even get that the comments were wrong. Good comments from refs that really helped the paper. Despite being so tough, all comments were fair and refs wrote great reports that dramatically improved the paper. Galor and the referees felt the contribution wasn't substantial enough. The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. One referee commented that we didn't make a methodological contribution and asked why economists should care about Y. Only quibble is one referee got stuck on a (not applicable) approach and wouldn't let go. Although other comments on this journal say that the review process is long, I had very different experience. High quality reports and useful comments from the editor. "Paper not of general interest, try sending to a field journal". Disgraceful! Very good experience all around. 1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals. Reports were semi thorough and okay, appreciated the fairly quick response, The referees raised concerns that we were not able to see before, and they were fair. The referee reports were fairly good. Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Economics of Food Consumption and Distribution. The editor decided major revision. Not a good experience. The editor did put more weight on the negative one. 1 serious person pushing his method. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. One referee report was very detailed. After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. Editor response, not a fit to the journal, too theory! 1 very good referee report, 1 OK, 1 pretty bad (revealing that the referee was clearly a non-economist). Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. Referee 2 was completely positive and was clearly knowledgeable of field. Good experience. Economics Job Market Rumors. Although desk-rejected, I am very satisfied. Receive reports from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. 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. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. No report yet. Not of broad interest. Disappointed it wasn't sent out for review, but can't fault them for speed! only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. Editor read the paper too and added some short comments. Good experience. That indicates he/she did not finish reading the paper. Editor from outside of the field (empirical corporate fin) did not think that my paper (ap theory) is interesting. Quick -- 3 days after editor was assigned. The paper was accepted few days after the revised version has been submitted. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. The reports were largely useless. Editor says, "your paper poses only a very marginal contribution to the literature in theoretical economics. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. Had to withdraw after ten months of waiting. Fair process and good report. Also very fast. Process was too long given that only minor changes were required on R&R. Recently Announced. Desk reject within 14 hours(!!!). Editor told us to what extent the comment should be addressed. Good process. Rejected in 4 days, editor said work was done net resting but not broad enough. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. Submitted August 14, 2015. The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. Good experience, great turnaround. Thorough review. Do not send your papers to this journal. Disappointed. Would not hesitate to submit to this journal in the future. also received comments from the old reviewer that were better than the first review. The editor Mark Taylor accepted the paper after one day of the last re-submission. Pretty fast, the reports are good. One positive report, one negative, editor's reject decision. No feedback at all. My new favorite journal, Very clear instructions from editor for revision. After 10 months waiting, I had a revise and resubmit decision. Desk reject in two weeks. One very good report, 6 pages long. Absolutely pathetic handling by Horner. Desk reject two days after I submitted the manuscript. So not sure why the editor would say this is "fixable", unless he is trying to say it sucks in a nice way. Good reports. My paper was on Covid and one ref was clearly not an economist, suggesting medical/health indicators, references and logic; impossible to satify I think with economics arguments. Very pleasant experience. Ref. Desk rejected after 1 month. 14 days for a desk rejection. One report was low quality the other was so-so. I got two rounds of R&R. Editor was also very helpful. 1 month + 10 days for desk rejection. Contacted them, told me they will try to send it out to reviewers. 6 months to receive half-assed & useless referee reports and request for major revisions. of? Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. I stopped reading after that). Overall, the reports were good so no complains. Worst experience so far. 9 days. Not anymore. We give the editors one week to judge the overall contribution and if acceptable send your paper to an associate editor. Job Description Linkedin.com. Absolutely disappointed by extremely poor response from the editor (Horioka). Less than 24 hours.Rogert J. Barro was the editor. Desk rejection in one week. The editor had good words about the paper but one ref didn't like it, so he rejected it. 6 months to desk reject with little reason. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. Only had to face one reviewer in the second round. 4 weeks for desk rejection is too much. Desk reject after 2 weeks due to bad fit. No way to check on status. Now? Other referee hadn't read the paper at all. Seems to be a fair process, 13 months for editor to desk reject because the paper has no empirical section, One good report, very constructive, the other one rejecting the paper. recommend ?that? Result not general enough for ECMA. The paper is mostly empirical and they asked for massive extension of the dataset. Economics Job Market. Only 1 report, but a fair assessment of the paper. 5 days, paper is too specific for QJE, Helpman suggested another journal. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. But the editor (Kunst) decided to "follow the referee's advice to reject your submission", even though there was no indication of such a recommendation in the RR. Revision took about 1 week, one of the reviewers requested additional data/info about the methods used. Editor wrote another helpful report as well. Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. Overall, it was a smooth process. I agree with most of the comments, but the bar for publication was exceptionally high, considering his relatively low position in the journal ranking. The editor's letter was well-written. We may have been aiming too high. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. Almost two months for desk reject, no submission refund. First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. Two useful ref reports in the first round. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Two referee reports. Do yourself a favor: if you have a journal that fits the topic of this journal, just submit it to JPopEcon, LE or the new Journal of Economics of Ageing. Referee really helped me to improve this paper with a great report.

The Oasis Spa Newcastle Under Lyme, Ad Hominem Examples In Advertising, Easyjet Hr Email Address, Cheyenne Dog Soldier Tattoo, What Naruto Character Are You Uquiz, Articles E