Friendly referee with clear remarks. They said they could not find reviewers. 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 said there was issues with finding referees. Unbased rejection after more than six months with mediocre reports and editorial justification. No response. Waited 13 months to two mildly positive reports. So-so experience. The other `meh'. You can even not see these wordings in Game of Thrones. 84 W Santa Clara Street, Suite 770, San Jose, CA 95113. Editor sat on completed reports for 3 months before making a decision. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. The referee report is very good and even show a positive view to my paper. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. Very good experience. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. happy for a quick decision. Lengthy, in-depth reports. Three short reports. Rejected after 2 weeks. Much better process and better reviewers at JAERE. High quality, detailed referee reports, which substantially improved the paper. Overall good experience. Very fast process. One of the referee reports was sloppy, showing inaccurate reading. Would submit here again now that I know what to expect. I received an answer of the editor after 2 months. Serrano handled the manuscript. Fair points raised, although I would have preferred a R&R naturally. The other report was useless. Cocaine Bear vs Research Workshop: can you tell the difference? Needless to say, the error is not as such, Bad reports (full of mistakes, pointed out to AE but didn't work), Assigned to an associate editor and got desk reject. Awfully slow for a desk reject, but at least the editor gave a couple of helpful comments and it was clear he'd read the paper with care. Made comments about Maximum Likelihood etc when I was using Method of Simuated Moments. Two excellent (and supportive) referee reports. Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. The acceptance came quickly after the second round of review. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. very good ref reports. Very smooth process. Fair process and good report. Weak reports with many assertaions that were simply untrue. Overall experience is good. The journal is a joke! Unfair decision. Second ref put thought into it but was of a heterodox stripe that I'm not. A bit slow, but good comments by the referee. Aarhus University, Department of Economics and Business Economics, School of Business and Social Sciences: Eric Hillebrand http://econ.au.dk/job-market-candidates . Too narrow-minded editor. desk rejection within 1 week. Probably he sent the paper to referees because he couldn't desk reject it, but his mind was made-up before hand. one ok report, one very hostile. Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Waste of $100. Flores, Jairo. Recommended second tier general interest journals. Jerome Adda was editor. Seemed like he carefully considered the paper. Reports were okay but in the end not that helpful. 10 month without any reaction from the editor. University of Sheffield. 4 months for a desk rejection based on what it appears to be a very superficial reading of the abstract. Excellent Experience. Whole process super quick. Good experience overall. Relatively high submission fee. Constructive and very detailed referee comments improved the paper. Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality. almost useless and the editor is too slow. He/she also asked for the summary statistics of my high frequency data while I already provided the estimates of bid-ask spread, price impact, order flow autocorrelation of each month for the entire contracts which shows his lack of knowledge about market microstructure. Very fast decisions. Bit disappointing given the high fee. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). Two good reports. One line "referee report". Also the editor gave us good comments. Good reports. a positive experience, all in all. To be honest, I had a hard time understanding exactly what the point of your paper is. Very slow. Boston University Department of Economics. Nice letter. President, University of Applied Sciences in Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Fast desk reject. Unbelieveble how fast some journals work!!!!! On the downside, the time between each of the two rounds of R&R was longish. Editor was a little bit lazy as it took him two months after receiving the ref report to answer. Quick desk reject, apparently considers itself a GI journal now (?). Not because of the decision but due the letter content. It was clear that the referees read the paper and provided appropriate comments. Paper was long and too dispersed at first, but the managing editor (Baptista) liked it, and the reviewers asked for changes while being receptive. Pretty well run, can't complain. 1 day desk rejection by editor. With editor for 1.5 month. Very quick route to getting useful reports. Some reviewers disappeared after the first review, the editors could't even find an alternative, and the comments were not assessed critically by the editors due to an editorial change. All queries tough but manageable - only difficulty was having 3 refs say sometimes contradictory things. reports, the reports were all nice an constructive. Fast desk reject (~2 weeks) with a couple of brief, helpful comments from the editor. The editor does not respond to emails. Do not waste your time with this journal. low quality and very short referee report Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text. Reasonably good experience; referee not overly experienced with topic. Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. It also tries to give advice, but not really doable. 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. Once that work was published, he finally accepted the paper. 1 referee with small reasonable suggestions. One of the best run journals in macro. Engineering at HPE One reviewer seemed to think a clean accept, one was 'not really convinced'. Efficient. Nice experience. The new editor rejected the paper 2 days after submitted it. Process was too long given that only minor changes were required on R&R. Referees asked for useless extensions and took more than six months in each round. Second round took 30 minutes, from submission to acceptance. Then the referee gave their answer in 2 weeks. Recommend trying better journal. Duh, Very helpful response from editor giving specific reasons that the manuscript would not be sent to referees, Thanks for your joining the Society, by the way, we don't think your historical paper with brand new historical data is right for a history journal. At the end, I got two reports; one helpful, the other garbage. But the other one was useless; it's like a collection of "minor comments.". Very efficient process. paper.? Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions. Rejected on grounds of the paper not "establishing a new set of empirical facts that theory must confront" (Eric Leeper). He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. Very clubby journal. One was a paragraph long and basically did a lit review. National Bureau of Economic Research. the other report is empty (rejection). Overall, pretty speedy given my submission coincided with end of year grading season and winter holidays in the US. His own comments were not based on the reports. I inquired a few times, and they responded promptly and politely, but sitting on a manuscript for a year is obviously unacceptable. Economics Job Market Updates / Wiki that ?no? No evidence that the editor read even the abstract. paper is short so 6 months for each round is very long. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. Very fast experience at last. Transfer from another Elsevier journal. Summary understated contribution of the paper making it looking boring. Going into the ninth month with no response. Long time to edit and format after acceptance. Frustrating. Editor contributed with some helpful comments as well. Reject based on a priori feeling of the reviewer with no scientific arguments but rather personal perception of her/his reading. One very constructive and positive report from economist, and one worst-I-ever-recieved report from a law scholar (maybe). The paper is now much stronger. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. Editor is a insecure joke. Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. moderately helpful but whole process took too long. This particular group controlling urban economics now will not let any differing view go through AER and JUE. It than took the editor (Mark Watson) another 6 months to read reports and make a decision. All three schools are exceptional but UChicago is particularly strong in Econ as well as other core subjects such as polisci and philosophy. Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade, Fair and efficient process. Really improved the paper. 9 months for 1 2-page referee report. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. Very helpful comments and suggestions from three reviewers and editor (Angeletos). Very efficient. Took way to long for three one page poor quality reports. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. Quick -- 3 days after editor was assigned. Seemed like a very long time to only receive one referee report. Tyranny of the single review. No discussion on the ID strategy, nor the novelty of the data. This journal is a joke. I am currently studying the interaction between technological and demographic changes and the labor market. Editor told us to what extent the comment should be addressed. Overall, it was a good experience. 1 reviewer R&R, two reject. Referees mixed. Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA)Berkeley - USA, Director of Economics and Data And some more nice words. Editor letter saying that what we do is not so new. 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. Not really a complaint though as there is no submission fee and the process was timely. The report is rubbish and incorrect. Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. Very low process. The main tasks of the potential candidates would be to carry . Besides, the editor's messages were rude. I felt as if 65$ has evaporated from my pocket. The negative one is essentially saying "it's not game theory so I don't care." Unbelievable! Editor cites two but only sends one. City of PhoenixPhoenix - USA, Senior Analyst - Economics Department Rejected based on 1 helpful referee report. Excellent desk reject by Larry S. Recommended a field journal by the editor. Editor was Imran Rasul, extremely professional and competent. cooperative? Getting a reference to AEJ Applied was worth it. Pleasant experience. The whole process was fast and streamlined. 2 very constructive reports, speedy process after resubmission, 2 useless reports by refs who barely skimmed the paper, one completely mistook the tested var & misreported it in his comments, editor's comments (Bill Collins) were smug and obnoxious but shallow, Very disappointing. I contacted the journal about that but no response. Which.a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject. Sometime he asks for favours from authors such as finding sponsors for special issues for other journals such as Emerging Markets Finance and Trade or ask authors to organise conferences and use the proceeding to cover the cost of the special issues. Recommended to aim for field journals. 8 days to desk rejection. We saw none. Overall, great experience. Two horribly low quality reports. Editor was kindly respond my email after 6 months, informed me that referees did not respond even after emailing them. 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. 19 Jul 2023. Both referees suggested papers to be cited in the literature review, which seem like their own papers. Given all that has happened with JPE in recent years, don't think I will waste my time and money with them again. I don't know what to add. The paper is accepted in another journal now. 3 weeks for a desk rejectand they keep the $100. The editor had good words about the paper but one ref didn't like it, so he rejected it. We got RR and referee reports 4 moths after submission, then it took 5 months to acceptance. Nice process and outcome. A black bitch barks at East Europe. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Nice words from the editor. Editor rejected. I heard back really quickly with helpful comments. It takes the editor a long time to respond but the comments are very helpful. Second one didn't understand the paper and said it was already written. Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). The worst experience so far. One report very solid and useful, another (two-paragraph one) looks confusing. Which editor handles the paper mattered. Desk rejected within two weeks. Good reports. Very fast and professional referee reports. Good experience. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. Referee seemed have read just the abstract. At this point, the editor asked us to review the abstract and the highlights. 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit. The editor did point out a couple of interesting things. 1 positive but short & useless, 1 incompetent negative who didn't even understand the historical topic. It would be a positive experience if submission were free. Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. Desk rejected in two weeks. Some warm words from the editor. This was the worst referee report ever. Highly recommended. Took seven weeks to get these reviews, pretty efficient journal. Overall great experience. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. Good comments from 2 referees, the other did not appear to have read the paper well. Editor clearly read the paper. Reject and resubmit although both referees and AE advised revision. However, everything was fixed, and overall I am happy. R&R only takes one week. Not worth the time wasted. Learn More About Katia. 4.5 months to get the 1st-round comments, 2.5 months for 2nd round. Garbage journal, not a real journal, avoid. Basically max 3-month turnaround from their side at any stage. Editor claimed that referee is an expert in the field. Editor guidance also helpful. So, I "told mother", and she was like "What is Edge-mer? One excellent report, one mediocre report. Insane process and utterly inexperienced referee. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. Extremely bad experience with this journal. I was politely told that I should have cited more JRU papers. One synthetic but straight to the point referee report, asking for very specific and reasonable corrections to the paper. However, once the paper was assigned to referees, the speed was normal. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways.