Lost more than 6 months for nothing. Great experience. Katz rejected my paper before I was done submitting it; suspect time travel. But referees are very negative. Very efficient process. Mathematics Jobs Wiki. Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. great experience. Economics Job Market Rumors . Referees asked for reasonable stuff. Fairly long wait though. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. Not recommended. Fast desk reject but zero useful information. Duration: 2 years. Excellent reports. Chiara Paz and Alice Wang. Very fast and the submission fee is relatively cheap and even cheaper for grad students. Not sure what the editor(s) are doing at this journal but whatever it is, it is not quality overseeing and editing of papers. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper. No value for such a high submission fee. Some decent comments nevertheless. Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. The equation to be estimated is not well explained and basic econometric issues (e.g., the problems related to the inclusion of lagged dependent variables) are not discussed. Very clear and good process. Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. Garbage. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. Very good experience. Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. You received a high fee, you explain at least one sentence about your decision making. One referee provided lots of helpful comments and even some ideas for future research. The paper was accepted after one round of submission. 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. Way too slow though. Placement Officers: Pete Klenow 650-725-2620 klenow@stanford.edu. They are also very slow! Referee reports were on the shrt side, but competent and polite, unfrtunately I doubt that the comments received will help improving the paper. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied even though I got a fast rejection. Professional co-editor and referee. The senior is useless as s/he was not happy that the paper is against an established theory. Although the paper got accepted, the quality of the comments and the editor's comments were beyond laughable and actually really make me regret having it sent there but it is too late. Russia was born in Kiev. Not sure whether to classify this as a desk or referee reject. Very happy with the process, definetly a favorite for future. 3 sentences total, six months. And because he could not find theoretical contributions. One helpful (though very demanding) report, the second so-so. 1 report, minor issues, rejected. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. Such along time frame for such a poor assessment of the paper. Nice when they actually read the paper. main message was that paper is a poor fit. Although I withdrew my article, editor sent me a rejection letter in a very rude manner. The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. -> Toilet. Held my paper for a full year and rejected it on a split decision with one ref suggesting an RR and the other a reject. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. The current reality of the economics job market is this. Second referee made some useful suggestions. Apparently JHE considers itself general interest. Tough but receptive referees. Ok experience. No feedback at all. Disappointing referee: a few useful comments, but mostly low-grade and somewhat hostile. Good comments from the referee. I love this journal. April 16, 2022. Rejected for arbitrary reasons. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. by Tatonnement Oct 1, 2008 18:58:14 GMT -5: Legend. Desk-rejected after ten days. Avoid that journal. Rejected for not general interest, brief comments by editor and a "finance scholar". Reflects really poorly on the journal to keep this guy. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. I withdrew the manuscript and will never submit here again. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience. it.?I? The review process yielded good referee reports in round 1. 2 week desk reject. Average time between rounds of R&R (months), EJMR | Job Market | Candidates | Conferences | Journals | Night Mode | Privacy | Contact. Clearly done day before deadline. Massive work. 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). If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! 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. We have done that, after several weeks, no answer. Results not important enough to a broad audience. 2 Reports. Desk reject in a week. Desk rejected by Katz within 24 hours. Editor admitted haven't read the paper. I am asked to send to another journal because the paper is not a good fit, the editor is very nice, professional and efficient. Or rather, the editor is very lazy to follow up on the reports. 4 months for first report, 5 months for second, only to be rejected by referee. Decision was made in 45 days. 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. Extensive delay for referee reports apparently due to unresponsive referee. I heard rumors they make desk rejections using bots, this one actually looks like it. Although the paper fits to one of their categories. 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) 2 good, one grumpy referee report. Ref rejected in 3 weeks.
What Is A General Factotum,
What Is Carter's Personal Bonus Day,
Articles E