econ job market rumors wiki
One recommended reject, the other R&R. He gave thoughtful comments about how to better target elsewhere. Editors only pick those with close network. Good reports - detailed and constructive. Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. The three reviewers really went through the proof, I was a little impressed by their comments. 6 weeks for a desk reject. 2 months for a generic desk rejection with not 1 signle comment on the paper. Katz had very clear advice regarding revision (also what parts of the referee reports to ignore). Ok experience. The referees loved it, very positive comments. very disappointing. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Applied Economics. Fast and Efficient Journal. Both reviewers were positive suggested R&R. Although I withdrew my article, editor sent me a rejection letter in a very rude manner. The other one, who wanted extra revises, was a bit of stupid. An Associate Editor clearly read the paper. very efficient process but experience depends crucially on editor. Desk rejected in 10 days. Desk rejected with 1 sentence after 2 months. Editor said he appreciated the previous paper but seemed to reject this one (which is probably better) since it fits in with a similar literature. The referee just want to reject and did not want to spend reasonable effort to read your paper. Two weeks. Very good experience all around. good reports, great editor who replies promptly to queries. The Editor does appologize on the long delay saying one referee did not provide the report. Good comments, helped improve the paper. A really good experience and really fast. New editor apologized for the delay and handled the rejection quickly. reviewer reports were okay, but the process took so long. It was a rejection but the editor (Abramitzky) read the paper and provided some additional comments that were helpful. Desk Rejected after 2 days. Almost 8 months to acceptance, despite Revised version submitted after 5months. 2 decent reports. The other was much more careful. Editor clearly read the paper, sent a long email telling me how much he liked it but that it would likely run into trouble with referees. The reports were very brief (. not a fair process. Katia Meggiorin. Good process. Never submit to this journal again. Journal. Very quick and professional editing. 10 month without any reaction from the editor. Extremely slow journal and not well managed journal. it.?I? Worst experience of my life. Pleasant experience. Insightful and constructive comments. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. This journal probably saw better days but as of now it is really a joke. Two short referee reports straight to the point. Special call. Some people are simply too narrow in the scope of their research to be editors of a journal which claims to be of "general interest". OMG: ht tps : // incels . wiki / Economics Job Market Rumors Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. The AE also provided his own review. 2 weeks to desk reject. rejection. Absolutely pathetic. Contacting the editor twice did not result in speeding up the process (but we received at least a reply). Accepted without revisions. 8 Days to get a desk reject. One absolutely incompetent referee. He suspects he could not understand a yota. Editor didn't even read the paper and rejected it. Efficient process and fast decision. Submitted in the covid special issue. Also gave a lengthy extension. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. The editor prefers state-of-the-art methods rather than good ideas. To view archived listings in this job market cycle that are now inactive, check this box View listings from the previous (August 1, 2022 - January 31, 2023) JOE cycle. Hollifield copy-pasted unsubstantiated claims in rejection letter apparently without even having a look on the paper. Second report very good. Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Quick desk reject with a few comments from the editor. Wish the outcome was different, but the turnaround time couldn't have been better. Going through 15 months of the reviewing process. To avoid. Just that paper did not meet the bar. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. Very fast. Worst referee report ever. After 4 months it remained Under review and these comments I get from the Reviewer: "You have a good idea. Refs gave some okay minor comments but no big, subtantive critiques. More than 16 weeks!! No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. Unbelievable! Very quick rejection (24 hours), with nice words from the editor, who obviously read the paper. No complains. The AE report made no sense at all, and had very little substance. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. Kind, thoughtful, and brief editor letter. Overall horrifying experience. One almost non-existent referee report (basically two lines just saying the paper is not broad enough), one very detailed and overall positive report. One very good report, another one heavily biased against methodology, yet helpful. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. It was clear the editor asked a former student to be the referee, I guess the editor does not feel positively about the paper. Rejected. Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Paper drastically improved through process. Fast. Afwul experience. Referees did not understand the contribution of the paper. Good experience, worth the 100$ :). What can i say more? Fast review process. Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. Professional editor. Reviewers made many incorrect comments and almost no useful comments, editor straight up said didn't read the paper, but reviewers are negative so reject. In general, efficient journal, 2 months, 2 good reports & 1 trash report, fair outcome and ok process. Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. Worked butt off to respond to them. Candidate Job Market Roster. Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). What a joke! The referee seemed to be familiar with the broad topic of the special issue, but not with the specific subject the paper dealt with (e.g. Great experience. Elsevier is terrible, screwed up the transfer so took over a month to end up on editor's desk. Very Detailed construtive reports. In case of desk rejection, they should return the submission fee. desk rejected in a week. That's not true. Bad experience. took 7 months for 1 referee report, but the R&R was quick. Some useful comments from his friend. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. He just wanted me to write a different paper. 3 months was a little long to wait, though. I am surprised no R&R. 2.5 are very positive. Unhappy with the outcome of course, but pleased with the process and the handling. quick process but the editor provided no information and was impolite. Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic. This decision is not in any sense a negative comment on the quality of the paper. Big fat load of help. Reasonable referee report. 8 months after submission, an in-depth and articulated referee report with many comments. Tough but fair referee reports. 1 report half page long. One extremely thorough and helpful report, one shorter but still raising valid points. 2 weeks to generic desk reject with no comments whatsoever. Terribly run journal and I wouldn't advise anyone to submit there. 2 fairly helpful reports. No reason provided, in line with the journal policy. All other comments were mentioned and addressed in the paper. Extremely disappointed. Round 2 also yielded good referee reports too. Very good experience. Not only is it accepted, but it also becomes a much better paper now. I don't think he/she took a wee bit of pain to find out the context. Editor skimmed it at best and decided to reject without comments. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. The editor, not having confidence in the reports, decided to reject, I believe. Will not submit again. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Was pleased with the process, besides the rejection. The contribution of the paper is not enough for EL! Editor gave me chance to convince other referee. The journal is higher than B. Do not submit to this journal. After submitting revisions, 1 month until final decision to accept with no other edits. had no economic relevance and was not worth being sent out to a referee. Very quick response. Very poor referee reports. 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) The paper was "with the editor". Job Market. Great feedback from editor, and semi-useful reviews. One year since submission, no replies to my queries shitty journal. Pathetic Three reports, one good report the other two average. Welcome to the Academic Jobs Wiki. Then why are we doing all this work?! Poorly managed journal. Andrew Foster took a full month for a desk without a comment. Editor picked reasonable comments, asked to take into account suggestions, accepted the paper after the referees agreed that what I did is reasonable. Referees did not bother to read the paper. Editor mentioned the wrong econometric model in email making it clear it was not read. One unprofessional and clueless referee. Journal always replied to me saying it is delayed and I finally withdrew after 2 years with no response. Very efficient and fast. Good experience with helpful AE and reviewer. Editor said all refs must agree for acceptance but only one ref report provided! I withdraw my submission after 15 months of submission and no answer from the editor. Anti-intellectual reasoning. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. the job market for junior economists. Quick rejection (Canova, 5 days), professional, very acceptable decision. Very quick rejection, but I received a nice response from one of the co-editors. If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not). Referee report was ready within a month after submission. Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. Fair referee reports, but I had to wait pretty long. Very easy suggested an appropriate transfer and levied the submission fees, with editor providing quite helpful comments. Paper was poorly read by the referees. it ?could ?be ?the ?case ?that ?I ?have? Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. STAY AWAY from this journal! Isnt it written that this journal focuses on mathematical reasoning instead of sticking to conventional setup? Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. It is definitely not worth the long wait! Overall great experience. relatively fast process and referee helped to improve the papers. Fast reviews with reasonable comments. Very good comments from both reviewers and the editor, Frank Sloan. Lorentzen (BI Norway), Lieber (Chicago), Lyngse (Copenhagen), Ststad (PSE), Osun (Maryland), Majewska (Toulouse), Nord (EUI), Sverud (Copenhagen), Zillessen (Oxford), Carry (CREST), Airaudo (Carlos III), See https://www.economics.ku.dk/Calendar/seminars/, Shunsuke Tsuda (Brown), Catherine van der List (UBC), Victor Pouliquen (Oxford), Evgeny Yakovlev (NES), Andreas Ziegler (Amsterdam), Valerio Pieroni (UAB), Thomas Brzustowski (LSE), Assistant/Associate/Full Professor-Ag and Applied Economics, University of Georgia (Terry College of Business), Thereze (Princeton); Lee (Princeton); Geddes (Northwestern); Vitali (UCL); Crews (Chicago); Cai (Northwestern); Kang (Stanford GSB); Bodere (NYU), Bodere (NYU), Cai (Northwestern), Thereze (Princeton), AP of Economics at Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan Ross School of Business, Serna (Wisconsin), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Qiu (Penn), Geddes (Northwestern), Altmann (Oxford), Kleinman (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Kahou (UBC) Kim (Penn) Holz (Northwestern) Holz (Chicago Harris) Wang (Rochester) Arbour (Toronto) Lee (Chicago Harris) Wasser (Cornell) Robinson (UCSB), Development, Political Econ, Applied Micro, Lecturer (Assistant Professor), Senior Lecturer and/or Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Yes- some girl accepted offer then took another job, Aina (Zurich), Bertazzini (Oxford), pires (berkeley), oliveira (berkeley), schief (brown), uccioli (MIT), sartre (brown), Sartre (Brown), Bertazzini (Oxford), Uccioli (MIT), Skoda (Zurich), De Vera (CEMFI), Sui (Rochester), Aina (Zurich), Ghersengorin (PSE), Hancart (UCL), de Carvalho (UBC), Gavan (UPF), Milson (Oxford), Schneider (UZH), Vattuone (Warwick), Herstad (Chicago), von Carnap (IIES), Lorentzen (BI), Altmann (Oxford); See https://tinyurl.com/mryuahhm, Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford), Sung (Columbia), Lanteri (Duke), Hui (LSE), Nord (EUI), Cruces (UC3M), Williams (Yale), Marto (Penn), Trouvain (Michigan), Sturm (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton); Lanzani (MIT); Cai (Northwestern);Guerreiro (Northwestern); Nord (EUI); Ederer (TSE); Starck (Brown); Bellue (Mannheim); Diop (Oxford); Banchio (Stanford GSB); Pernoud (Stanford); Saxena (Harvard); Souchier (Stanford); Vitali (UCL); Sharma; Serna (Wisconsin), Wheeler (UC Berkeley), Bagga (UT Austin), Gutierrez (Chicago), Szerman (Princeton), Crews (Chicago), Nord (EUI), Peng (Penn), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), University of Rochester (Simon Business School), Arkhangelsky (CEMFI AP), Bai (Michigan AP), Pouliot (Chicago Harris AP), Chang (Yale), Cai (Northwestern), https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/index.php/index/research/seminars?dateRange=past&seriesId=0, Sarah Robinson (UC Santa Barbara), Justin Wiltshire (UC Berkeley), Katherine Rittenhouse (UC San Diego), Christopher Mills (Princeton), Eduardo Medina Cortina (UIUC), Arielle Bernhardt (Harvard), Jenya Kahn-Lang (Berkeley), Katherine Riitenhouse (UCSD), Gina Li (Stanford), Stephanie Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Flynn (MIT), Wang (Stanford), Lu (Stanford), Leombroni (Stanford), Seth (LBS), Singla (LBS), Ptashkina (UPF) Sileo (Georgetown) Gutirrez (Chicago) Chang (Yale) Shen (UCLA) Kohlhepp (UCLA) Cai (Northwestern) Morazzoni (UPF) Wong (Columbia) Carry (CREST) Nimier-David (CREST) Chen (Stanford GSB) Bodr (NYU) Tintelnot (Chicago AP) Beaman (Northwestern AP) Lamadon (Chicago AP) Kang (CMU AP), Risk and Insurance at Wisconsin School of Business, Rao (UCSD), Wiseman (Berkeley ARE), Rexer (Wharton), Giaccobasso (UCLA), Yucheng Yang (Princeton), Sofonias Korsaye (SFI), Matteo Leombroni (Stanford), Yes, 2/05/2023 according to EconTrack (who?