Never deal with stupid journal anymore. Editors are not reading referee reports. Pathetic Three reports, one good report the other two average. You needed 2 months to tell me that? Avoid him. I think the editor may have been waiting on a 3rd report, glad they didn't wait any longer (20 weeks is enough to wait for a reject). Finance Job Rumors (489,006) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,503) Micro Job Rumors (15,223) Macro Job Rumors (9,792) European Job Market (100,940) China Job Market (103,450) Industry Rumors (40,309) There is no option to choose 'Referees Accepted' but 'Editor Rejected'. Both read, understood and gave a few comments. Two referee reports; one high quality, one very low quality. The editor said that referee is an expert in this field. Besides, the editor's messages were rude. But then, it took 20 weeks until we got the acceptance. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. Overall a good experience! 1 referree was critical, but offered great suggestions, other 2 were mediocre at best. 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 referee clearly did not read the paper, while the other one did not understand the meaning of control variables. Editor agreed. Editor wrote a few short comments. Will submit again. Journal: Utilities Policy (was not included as a journal to chose). one week to accepted with minor changes. Suggested some other journals. However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor. Pretty efficient turnaround. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. Rejected within 4 days with a decent explanation. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable commentvery well run journal, fast and no submission fee! One refree report who made very useful comments that helped significantly improve the paper. Editing is a service and it is not mandatory. I spent less time and less effort revising 30 pages papers in other similar ranked journals than in EL, Excellent process and editor provided useful comments and guidance, Very pleasant experience very quick and the report professional. Reports were split. 10 lines not even sure they read the paper. One report was very positive, but the second one looked like it was written in ten minutes citing four papers of his own. The report is rubbish and incorrect. Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. One great, very helpful report; one report that made an honest effort, but wasn't useful; one report that was one paragraph long and littered with spelling mistakes. 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. Arizona School Board rejects hiring teachers with Christian values: What is the best country currently to live in? A number of emails without reply since then. 2.5 months to get a RR. The whole process was fast and streamlined. Pretty stupid rationale based on lack of methodological innovation. Took about 2.5-3 months for first response which detailed a lot of work - two R & R decisions, each of which took about 2 months for referees to get back on. Editor read the paper and outlined clear (and fair) reasons for rejection. Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. Actually took nearly 15 months. Terrible report. The referees made good points. Useless comments. The referee has read the paper. Still took 3 months. 2/3 ref reports were detailed and useful. Desk reject in a week. Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA)Berkeley - USA, Director of Economics and Data 3 years for a desk rejection, after sending them at least 6 emails and filing a complain with the publisher. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. Quick handling, competent (positive) reports. Would send here again. Will never submit to this journal again. Fair points by referees. The Editor is regular contributor to that mistake and provided non-sensical rejection. Editor desk rejected based on the identification strategy in the abstract, and clearly did not read the paper. the ?author? Two high quality reports. Two very good referee reports. Much faster than last experience with the journal, same result. Overall, great experience despite the negative outcome, The WORST experience of my rather long life. Fast R&R with reasonable reports and encouraging editor letter. Please Login or . Recommended rejection. Very unlucky submission: First round Reject and Resubmit. Desk rejected in 8 days. Referees were obviously a bad choice for this topic. Useful and professional referee report . 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful). 9 month for two reports. Suggested to submit to a good journal. Sent a specialized financial accounting paper. This journal probably saw better days but as of now it is really a joke. The former editors at the penn state just issued reject to relieve their editorial jobs. The paper is accepted in another journal now. Over the past six years, the department has placed a total of 128 graduates in academic, research, and government jobs. Efficient process. One extremely hostile report written by someone who is clearly trying to delay my results from coming out and another one paragraph report recommending minor revisions. Worst experience with a journal so far. 5 months for one low-quality referee report. Waited 2 months for the paper to be assigned to an editor. 1 good, 1 okay and one bad review. Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. More importantly, the analysis is flawed by a number of major shortcomings. 1 month desk reject. Overall an excellent experience. Useful comments from editor; one really great ref. 2.5 months review. Editor is a little slow. The secondary market "Scramble". Rejected after revision, very good comments in initial round. A Doctorate level degree in Economics or related fields, or expect to receive it in 2023 with strong background in empirical analysis and policy-focused research. However comments from the negative one are the most detailled and helpful. Avoid at all cost. Awful experience! one ok, one very short and superficial referee report. Referee report was positive and recommended R&R. 2 months for decision from being notified that "reviews received" and one of the referee reports was dated 7 months ago. Not belonging to the club implies rejection. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. Desk rejected in 1 week. 2 very good reports and one poor report. Slow as hell. 3 pages of helpful comments by the editor, suggested very good field journals instead, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society). Quick, polite desk rejection from Deming. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. Complete garbage. Largely fair points. Advisor: Prof. Caterina Calsamiglia. Referee reports are interesting and constructive. It seems that the referee did not read the paper just pinpointed assumptions he did not like to reject. Down side: reports are quite short: 1 paragraph each. Awfully slow. Bad experience, waste of money and time. The referee report was more appropriate for R&R. The referee did not understand the basic assumption of the model. Very quick rejection, but I received a nice response from one of the co-editors. desk reject after 9 days - reason: editor feels not suitable for publication. First report was helpful, second one was literally 2 lines. International Review of Financial Analysis. Analytic number theorists: your opinion on TK's claimed disproof of the RH ? He made the most stupid argument to reject the paper. The initial resposen took too long (almost 4 moth to be sent our to referees). Pretty fast, the reports are good. Waste of the submission fee. On its face, the referee provided a good report, but once I dug into the details, it was clear he didn't understand my identification strategy. The other reviewer raised some minor issues. Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. Invited to revise and resubmit the paper. 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. 2 good reports, clearly improved the paper. The AE finally conceded that I was right and the referee was wrong - but decided to reject the paper anyway! No regrets, Good reports, not extremely helpful, but good. Useful ref reports and helpful comments from co-editor. It also tries to give advice, but not really doable. Desk rejected within 7 days. 14 days for a desk rejection. Desk rejected in two hours with a polite email that basically said "your methodology is wrong and your question is wrong." Finance Job Rumors (489,491) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,777) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,013) China Job Market (103,528) Industry Rumors (40,348) Also a very kind editorial letter. Other referee didn't have a clue. Bad experience. I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. Really bad experience (Midrigan was the editor). Referee said he just didn't like the paper. Neither felt that the paper was a good fit for an urban journal. Helpful and fair referee reports. Very positive experience. Very Detailed construtive reports. One very good, detailed, and positive report. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. The reviewer's reports came up 2 months after submission. Very slow. Same referee takes about half an hour to conclude the math is wrong, yet takes 5 months to submit his report. Mentioned that they do not consider theoretical papers. Each report was one small paragraph long. R&r from the editor with major changes suggested by one referee and the urge to strongly orientate the paper towrds one of her (editor) papers. Reports were ok, but total process took way too long. Unacceptable waiting time. Ref reports both frank and helpful. 1 referee report after 1 year, referee did not like the idea, editor Pok-sang Lam. The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! "Not a good fit". Good reports - detailed and constructive. 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit. ", Fact: the SAT and GRE are just thinly veiled IQ tests. Paper was accepted two days later. 19. Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. Good experience. Much quicker response than suggestsed. Super fast process than I had expected. major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). Generally not 5-star experience but worth submitting there if your paper is relevant. Despite perceptions they do desk reject. Very fast experience at last. Multiple inquiries with a response: "once the reviews are completed, the editor will make a decision". Worst experience ever. Will not consider it again. Editor does not even both to check referee letter. Less than two weeks from submission to editorial decision. Bad referee reports. Easy Process. The paper was "with the editor". Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and less than two months in the second round. The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. The other was low quality and made factually incorrect statements that seemed to influence the associate editor's assessment of the manuscript. Fast turnaround and good comments. Three good reports and fair decision. Good reviews by the referee and the AE. One ref gave R&R; the other two were rejections for not being of sufficient interest for AEJM.
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Leadership, Hunting Land For Lease In Cleburne County, Al, Matthew Adabuga Biography, Articles E