econjobrumors.com Top Marketing Channels. One referee commented that we didn't make a methodological contribution and asked why economists should care about Y. All suggest major revision and change of approach. A black bitch barks at East Europe. Not very useful comments from any of them. Poorly managed editorial process. One was a paragraph long and basically did a lit review. Happy with the whole process. Desk reject in 1 week. Efficient. Co-editor rejects because contribution is not big enough to warrant publication. Good process. It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. The referee reports were good. Fast decision after resubmit. Two refereere reports and no comments from the editor on the reports. Posted: (4 days ago) WebNov 2011 - Present10 years 4 months. Comments are mainly about rephrasing implications and minor issues. AE rejected without commenting on referee report, At least a quick report with one good comment that can help to improve the paper, but with the other points highlighted by the referee were discussed in the paper. 2.5 are very positive. Very quick response from Editor (Otrok) after revision. Most efficient experience with journals ever! At least response in 1.5 month. One report was very useful. Economist 64dd. Awful experience. Job Market Candidates. Rogerson very quickly pointed out the paper did not merit publication. 14 days for a desk rejection. Available November 2022 for positions in Summer/Fall 2023. The editor rejected based on flimsy reasons. Journal is basically a scam now. Quick response from referees and editor. Lucky to get past desk reject. Form letter from the editor. Good editor. Will not consider again. Strongly recommend this journal for health economists! Desk rejection based on lack of fit, altough there were at least 4 papers published on the same topic in previous years. complimentary with some comments but said focus was too narrow, Good feedback from eitor, very quick desk reject. Very long time for first response. Desk rejection in 6 minutes with a "pretended" letter, which could be used for any paper. Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. Submitted in 2012. Desk rejected in 10 days because the editor wasn't a fan of the data. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. Excellent comments from reviewers. Never again! Tough but fair referee reports. Do not send a paper to BE JM, Very bad experience. Excellent reports. Very slow. Not for the faint-hearted. Generic letter from editor. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. You received a high fee, you explain at least one sentence about your decision making. Waste of the submission fee. Overall, very good experience. the ?Nash? So, I "told mother", and she was like "What is Edge-mer? Great experience. RAND prefers IO topic. reviewer knew an aspect of the literature and appeared to promote his own unpublished paper under review at the same journal. In general, efficient journal, 2 months, 2 good reports & 1 trash report, fair outcome and ok process. They like the paper but the contribution not enough for Econometrica. One very good report, one OK. One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal. half a page report. reject after 3 months. I am just not part of the club. If you don't have that - expect to be desk rejected. Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. Editor read the paper, added some comments of her own. High quality, detailed referee reports, which substantially improved the paper. Horrible editorial process. Two reports -- one good (mostly cosmetic changes), one very short. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. Reports were not fair but at least fast response. 2 constructive reports that improve the paper after 2 months. Very mixed report quality. Useful reports, pleasant experience overall. No regrets, Good reports, not extremely helpful, but good. Eight weeks to get two very high-quality reports. A forum for economists to discuss economics, economics jobs, conferences, journals and more. desk rejected after more than 2 months, very generic motivation (try a field journal), they took the submission fees and thanked me a lot for the payment! Took 5 months in total, 2 reports, a paragraph each. Both editor and referees liked the paper, comments from referees are on the point and constructive. Explains longish time to first review. Either way, unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. Finance Job Rumors (488,736) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,359) Micro Job Rumors (15,223) Macro Job Rumors (9,790) European Job Market (100,917) China Job Market (103,439) Industry Rumors (40,300) What follows is a summary of what I see as the key advice, with links to other resources that go into more depth or do a better job than I can. Editor highly incompetent. However, the quality of the report is very high and it helps improve the paper a lot. Very helpful comment. never submit to this journal again. Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work.". Good experience! 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. 2 reports minimal work, 1 report some work. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. After doing what the, very stupid, referee asked he said "not a big enough contribution". Comments are not useful at all. 7 days for desk reject. Very professional handling of the editor with very detailed comments and helpful reports. Surprised at how quickly all went. Desk reject due to lack of scope of the manuscript, Rejected for a lack of contribution. desk with a letter from editor. Excellent and helpful comments from both referees and the editor. It took 7 months until the JORS provided two referee reports of poor quality (one refere suggested to replace GMM with FE regression because it is impossible to solve endogeneity completely). Very fast process. It is a pity it was rejected, but I appreciate the quick response. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so." Great experience; precise and informed referee report; 1st round for major improvements, 2nd round pretty much converged to acceptance. Fair process. Valuable referee's reports. Ok, experience if it wouldnt be for the 11 months. Clearly no effort was put into it. Very efficient process with explicit timeline. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. moderately helpful but whole process took too long. Extremely poor experience for a journal charging submission fees. Until the 1970s, junior economics hiring was largely by word of mouth. Good experience. After fully addressing the reviewers' comments at each round, the article got rejected in the third round with a totally "ex nihilo" issue risen by one of the reviewers, who never mentioned the issue before. No ref reports, 1 sentence from editor. 1 really excellent, positive report. 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!!!). Cool editor. Waste of time.
Departament | Facultat d'Economia i Empresa - Job Market Candidates Referees did not show good knowledge of the subject. Very clear and good process. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. One positive report, one negative. Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. The positive report points out more contributions than we claim. Good. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. First two reports were "not general interest enough" and didn't have much to say substantively as a result (1-2 pages). Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, It took 4 rounds of referee reports. Expected at least some referee reports but got a bad match editor-wise. It just decided not to believe the empirical analysis. Turns out that means he's following the Schwert model: don't read the paper, regurgitate the reviewer's comments in the decision letter. Form letter. journal has a reputation for being out of the mainstream of econ. No reason given. I am currently studying the interaction between technological and demographic changes and the labor market. One helpful (though very demanding) report, the second so-so. One good referree report, one positive but unhelpful, one negative and entirely useless. Reasonable referee report. Editor then said with a quick/thorough response and no need to go back to refs. Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. Yet editor made some good comments. A disappointment. Editor accepted the paper after we made some modifications recommended by the referee. Not even a single remotely useful comment. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. had to withdraw, Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. Though nothing extremely deep, comments were of acceptable quality. I will never submit to this journal. AFter 3 months of being "under review", I get this email: I regret to say that we are not able to offer publication to your paper. Somewhat useful comments from Department Editor. Grad student who manages inbox for ed took bad review at face value. The referees should be (far) better than the illiterate idiot they gave me! Process seemed very fair. Although the paper fits to one of their categories. Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. Very helpful referee report. 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). Editor did not intervene and kept hiding throughout. Very slow process. Rejected after one round of review despite all referee comments being addressed. submission was in 2017. 1 very good referee report, 1 OK, 1 pretty bad (revealing that the referee was clearly a non-economist). Good process. Poor targeting on my part. Repeated enquiries ("hey, its been a year now") have been followed by profuse apologies. Took quite long for a desk rejection. Was a longshot. AEA-Committee on the Job Market; Cawley, John, A Guide and Advice for Economists on the U. S. Junior Academic Job Market, 2018-19 edition Johannes Pfiefer maintains a catalog of job market tip pages and resources Resources for applying to government positions - L&S Career Site for Govt, Policy, International Affairs, writing a . Rapid desk rejection, with fair comments and advice from editor. Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. One referee provided lots of helpful comments and even some ideas for future research. The referee was clearly trying to protect his own paper on a related topic; half of the bullet points referred to that paper. Good experience. Beyond the scope of the journal. It is frustrating to get rejected after convincing the referees. Accepted after 3 R&R. One good quality referee with good comments and suggestions. Easy Process. The only referee who respond wrote some nonsense without reading the paper. We were asked to collect additional data for our existing experimental treatments to increase our statistical power. A second round of minor revision was requested. Receive desk rejection in 24 hours, editor read the paper and suggested to top field journal. One weak report, one reviewer that clearly did not read the paper but did not like what he claimed we did and suggested we do other things which did make much less sense and one reviewer that gave comments that were pretty easy to address. the referee reports are of good quality, but I think 11 month for a first response is too long, Very quick response. Interesting but not a good fit. Editors only pick those with close network. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. 2 days to get a desk rejection. Pretty rough coments from an editor who clearly did not get the point of the paper. totally useless editor. Editor referred to a report by a reviewer received by phone. Poor quality reports. rejected after 2 rounds of revisions. 2 weeks. Other referee didn't have a clue. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. a? Which.a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject. Editor Bruce Hollingsworth suggested an alternative journal. Very helpful referee report. Good strong editors. Same referee takes about half an hour to conclude the math is wrong, yet takes 5 months to submit his report. Comments by R1 were helpful, but 100+ days for 1 report is too long. It seems that the referee did not read the paper just pinpointed assumptions he did not like to reject. One referee does not follow simple math, immediately assumes the model is wrong and the editor takes his side. 2 years and counting, for a small paper. Two reviewers recommended rejection. It is a disgrace to the profession reflects poorly on the journal. Professional editor. Finally withdraw. Overall, good experience. Great experience. desk rejected in a week. 14 months from submission to publication online. Two referee reports, each was half a page with very general comments about the lack of contribution to a general readership. 20 Feb 2023. The report that was on fence did not understand some of the points made in the paper, as his biggest concern was addressed in the introduction itself. Fast response time. Referee said he just didn't like the paper. Didn't really get a clear sense from the negative reports why they rejected. The time was not long (bit less than 10 weeks), the outcome was what is normal in this profession (Referee rejection). But first response took a whole year. Strongly recommend submitting there. Slow moving. Editor handled the paper well. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Would submit again. Great experience! Overall, not bad experience. No feedback from handling editor, No refund. Referees mostly wanted me to provide more background and a deeper policy discussion. Two useless reports for a paper that has been accepted by another journal of general interest. Rare experience where every round made paper much better. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. Said the contribution was not enough for a JFE publication. Editor guidance also helpful. After waiting for 6 months received one crap report which is absolute garbage! However, he suggested that I submit my paper to a theory journal. Referee recommends conditional accept but AE strongly against publication. Very tough report on the first RR, extensive changes suggested, though all feasible and mostly all improved the quality of the paper. Nedless to say I got no referee report even after asking. Constructive feedback from AE. None of the criticism was fatal and most was stylistic. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni (
[email protected]). Still, was super fast and allows to improve the paper. Accepted once I satisfied the referees. Apparently the assigned coeditor left and paper got stuck. fair comment. Desk rejected after 1 month. Very helpful referee reports. Relatively high submission fee. Desk rejected in 2 weeks, editor recommended sending the paper to a field journal. While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. This, of course, is useless. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. "Not a good fit". Two weak reports. Very efficient. Do not offer any innovative technique. There was a second round of ref. Editorial processes were very fast. I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know very quick. Received acceptance on the same day i resubmitted the paper. Good experience, strong feedback. is ?so ?poor? 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). One of them was very detailed. R&R only one round; after submitting the revised version, only waited for six days until final acceptance. A very positive experience for a filler publication. She admitted having forgotten about it until 8 months later and sent us a rejection. Completely useless reports from referees/editor not know the methodology involved. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and about two months in the second round. Great experience. Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. Editor gave me chance to convince other referee. Very poor referee reports. ref report had useful but not overly comprehensive suggestions. 19 Jun 2023. Some not so fair. Desk rejected the next day. one positive one negative, editor chose to reject.
Job Market and Placements | Faculty of Economics Extremely unprofessional. Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago. No surprising, but referee report was sloppy and incorrect. Too slow for a short paper, AE spent 4+ months to write very short and useless report. The model is not presented in a clear and intelligible way. Useful but demanding referee reports. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. Absolutely disappointed by extremely poor response from the editor (Horioka). 2 months for a generic desk rejection with not 1 signle comment on the paper. Recommended second tier general interest journals. Hence, terrible. Also, did not bother to understand the theoretical contribution. Great experience - referee reports really helped improve the paper. Rather short reports for waiting 6 months. Amazing efficiency. Initial demanding R&R. I got two very different referee reports, one was very critical but absolutely low quality. Editor was Nielsen. Helpful for resubmission somewhere else. Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. $100 fee refunded. Nice reports. Contact: hyejin -dot- park -at . Editor didn't waste any time on accepting after first revision. Extensive, constructive and mildly positive ref report. Very quick and professional editing. Home. Lousy comments from the Editor in chief. In general, it is difficult to follow the derivations due to a lack of intuitive explanations. 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. Ref needed 6 months to produce a paragraph of a response. Resulted in much better paper. Crappy journal with crappy editor. It takes the editor a long time to respond but the comments are very helpful. Sum up: Fast but not cool, Editor. Many, many factual errors about the paper. Editor also gave very detailed description of the necessary changes. After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. Constructive and very detailed referee comments improved the paper. The paper was published in 2016, Decent referee reports that indeed improve the paper. 4 months for ref. 8 Days to get a desk reject. The transfer offer was helpful, though, since we did not have to pay a submission fee in order to send the paper to the other journal. things slowed down because of covid. . editor very helpful.
Economics Job Market Rumors - Forum for Economists He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. It is run by "Kirk", [2] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. They pretend to look like an international journal however thay only consider studies related to Japan. Aina (Zurich), Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA), Conte (U Bologna / UAB), Stockler (UAB), Health Economics Labor and Demographic Economics Urban, Rural, Regional, Transportation Economics In, Fan (Stanford), Lepper (Pitt), Mahmood (OSU), Rehbeck (Ohio State AP), Vidart (UConn AP), Liu (Michigan AP), Yoder (Georgia AP), Mathevet (EUI AP), Cox (Yale postdoc), Choi (Princeton), Craig (Yale postdoc), applied microeconomics, econometrics, and/or macroeconomics, Yang (USC) Vidart (UConn AP) Qiu (Penn) Mills (Princeton) Mugnier (CREST), Borusyak (UCL), Ramos (Harvard), Ostriker (MIT), Sharma (MIT), Vitali (UCL), Crews (Chicago), Druckenmiller (RFF), University of California, San Diego (UCSD), Seck (Harvard), Mills (Princeton), Alfonsi (Berkeley ARE), Rivera (Columbia), Idoux (MIT/Wharton AP), Moscona (MIT), Souchier (Stanford), Chen (Stanford GSB), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Vitali (UCL), Ederer (Toulouse), Lanzani (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Miller (Wharton), Vasudevan (Yale SOM), Nimier-David (ENSAE), Pernoud (Stanford), Kwon (HBS), Fleckenstein (Stern), Hampole (Kellogg), Wang (Stanford GSB), Tang (Harvard), Coston (CMU), Singh (MIT), Yong Cai (Northwestern), Yuling Yan (Princeton), Mou (Berkeley), Jahani (Berkeley), Chang (Yale), Moran (Columbia), Uehara (Cornell), Althoff (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Carry (ENSAE), Conlon (Harvard), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Kohlhepp (UCLA), Minni (LSE), Moscona (MIT), Nguyen (MIT), Otero (UC Berkeley), Pernoud (Stanford), Roth (Uni of Cologne), Thereze (Princeton), Vergara (UC Berkeley), Sturm (MIT), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford). Referee failed to upload report. Gorodnichenko was nice. 1 very helpful report. The second one was a "consultation by telephone" but no feedback to us. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. The reviewers "firmly" recommend rejection but I see that most problems can be fixed. Fast and fair. editor(s) provided good comments too. Two good referee reports though the review process is A bit slow. more months, before rejection based on superficial comments. One of the critics was not applicable, but the major critic was quite helpful. Paper drastically improved through process. Placement Director - Alessandro Pavan Email:
[email protected]. One report of 10 lines with one minor comment and the other one, longer but with also minor comments. Quick-ish, 10 weeks.
Microlocs Installation Nj,
Tyler Shatley Pff,
How To Run Extension Cord Through Door,
Northampton Crown Court Sentencing,
Articles E