Reports only partly helpful. might be a once in a career event. Editor was kind and offered some useful remarks. Two entirely reasonable reports. Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days. Pretty terrible experience. Apparently is unaware of large literature in multiple fields to which topic pertains. Desk rejected in 3 days. Reviewers likely not in my area; rather superficial comments. Fast response from the Editor. Applying for academic jobs. Very long time to receive the first decision (major revision). Given all that has happened with JPE in recent years, don't think I will waste my time and money with them again. I waited six weeks for an inaccurate, one paragraph referee report? I urged the editor to give me reports 3 months after the initial submission. After 4 months it remained Under review and these comments I get from the Reviewer: "You have a good idea. All comments seem easy to answer. got the impression that the reviewer did not read the paper and decided to dispute the review, the dispute process took slightly more than 1 month and the new reviewer sided with the old reviewer. Good experience. Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. Such along time frame for such a poor assessment of the paper. 2 pretty decent referee reports.Of course one said "the quality of the model and empirical evidence is below the standards for a journal like the QJE. Job Postings | The Econometric Society 1 good, 1 okay and one bad review. main message was that paper is a poor fit. topics should probably be closely related to banking. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, O. Four months for a desk reject! A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. Will submit again. Referee report was reasonable and improved the paper. Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. Would submit again. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. Instead, she just re-sent me her rejection (from when she was a referee before). (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint). 150$ is quite a lot of money. Great experience! OK process, but some reports were useless. One not very helpful/professional report. Two reports of middling quality. Report from the Editor. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. 2 months, the article is still under internal review DPR had my manuscript for over a year, and never even got it under review. Paper rejected by editor. I think that's fair, since I had also suspected the paper might not be a great fit. Great experience! Good referee report and very efficient editor. Editor agreed = reject. Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper. 1 Week, Sent with reports (and subsequent updates) from earlier submission, Desk rejected reasonably fast after 2 weeks to submission. Not worth the time wasted. The editor's letter was well-written. Other referee hadn't read the paper at all. One good and two useless reports. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. Good reports. Health economics, Applied . I would submit again or recommend this outlet! They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. Paper not anywhere close to editor's field of interest. Desh rejected in less than a week. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. Very good experience. No comments from Katz except go to field journal. In a word, this is not a serious journal. placement@econ.ucla.edu. 2.5 months to get a RR. A forum for economists to discuss economics, economics jobs, conferences, journals and more. Editor read the paper too and added some short comments. 3 months for desk reject with superficial comments is ridiculous. Basically, just a short e-mail saying that it cannot be accepted and it is more suited to some other types of Journals. Expected at least some referee reports but got a bad match editor-wise. Welcome to the Mathematics Jobs Wiki 2021-2022 research positions page. Excellent communication with editor. Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions. Sick comments and rejection for no reasons. Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Excellent and detailed report, fair decision. Total waste of time. Over half a year for response from one referee who a) had no problems with the methodology, b) liked the writing, and c) thought it had a novel contribution. Fast. After 12 months the paper was not even sent out to review or rejected despite 10 emails. Two referees, two weak R&Rs, editor rejects despite the recommendations of referees. Accepted without need for further revisions. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. Comments just so-so. Awesome experience. Recommended second tier general interest journals. ), Vienna University of Economics and Business, Ceccarelli (Zurich/Maastricht), Pitkjrvi (Aalto), Assistant Professor in Labor, Migration, and Racial Capitalism, Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario), Gallant (Toronto), Sullivan (Yale), Cui (UPenn), Choi (Wisconsin-Madison), Kahou (UBC), Hentall-MacCuish (UCL), Babalievsky (minnesota), Moszkowski (Harvard), Hong (Wisconsin-Madison), Pan (UT Austin), McCrary (UPenn), Gutierrez (University of Chicago), Kwon (Cornell), Zillessen (Oxford), Ba (UPenn), Assistant, Advanced Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor of Economics, E0 -- General F3 -- International Finance F4 -- Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Fin. Long time to edit and format after acceptance. Use widely accepted methods. Good reports. long waiting time. Editor was a little bit lazy as it took him two months after receiving the ref report to answer. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! Desk rejected within 3 days with idiotic comments, as usual. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. best submission experience. 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? Letters from the Editor was nice. Finance Job Rumors (489,418) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,722) Micro Job Rumors (15,231) Macro Job Rumors (9,801) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,526) Industry Rumors (40,345) desk rejected in 3 days. The editor rejects the paper and I think it is fair, but I do see that the paper can be improved based on these reports. fast process; only one report who was mainly referencing a single paper (SSRN, not published, single author); no useful feedback, disappointing experience. Whole process super quick. Will probably not be using this journal again. One of the worst experience I have ever had. Big fat load of help. Two straightforward reports calling for revision. Is "have u told ur mother" am automated script, or truly deranged person? Extremely long wait at this journal for comments. Burak Uras (Tilburg AP), Caitlin Hegarty (Michigan), Diana Sverdlin Lisker (MIT), Suzanna Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Garima Sharma (MIT), Ruozi Song (USC), Heitor Sandes Pellegrina (NYU Abu Dhabi), Juanma Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Katherine Stapleton (WB/Oxford), Dario Tortarolo (Berkeley), Jonah Rexer (Wharton), Anna Vitali (UCL), Livia Alfonsi (Berkeley), Binta Zahra Diop (Oxford), Shafaat Yar Khan (WB/Rochester), Althoff (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Vaidya (Northwestern), Chan (Stanford), Bodere (NYU), Pernoud (Stanford), Kang (Stanford GSB), Minni (LSE), Otero (Berkeley), Bodere (NYU), Vergara (Berkeley), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Carry (CREST), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Ospital (UCLA), Lanzani (MIT), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Kennedy (Berkeley), Souchier (Stanford). Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. Both referees were concerned about identification, but did not suggest how to fix. 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. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. Fantastic experience (accepted first round), Directly accepted within one month. Good ref reports. Got accepted after a week. First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. Chat (0) Conferences. Very efficient process. Nice letter. Not very helpful reports. He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. Although the suggested changes would have made the paper way too long for an EL pub. I want my money back ! One absolutely incompetent referee. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. Fast turn around with great referee reports that significantly improved the paper. I don't know what to add. The comment by the editor in charge was helpful. Amazing efficiency. Editor does not see a path to acceptance so rejection. Took 4 months to report that the article was not a good fit and return without reports. Helpful and competent editor who made clear what were the important points to address. 6 months for a referee report written by a plain imbecile who could not even derive Proposition 1. Spent a week rewriting the paper according to requests of the editor ("put figures in the end of the paper" and such), then got a desk reject. Editor was US-based and said that she likes the idea though! This is why our profession sucks. Editor: "Far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal". Seems largely like the referee just didn't like it and the editor wanted there to be more significant results (publication bias at its best). It ended up being published in a higher ranked journal. Only one referee report in 11 months? Expected better, expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision. Rejected, but editor and referees were fair. journal has a reputation for being out of the mainstream of econ. Very good and useful referee reports. Editor rejected, but I have a feeling that both refs recommended R&R for different reasons. The referee reports were serious and offered some good suggestions, although one of the referees appeared not to understand the theoretical model used in the paper. Fair rejection. One brief report. Job Market. One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. After this thrid email, the paper moves up and it takes 11 weeks to get referee rejection (quality fo the two reports: poor, they wont improve my paper). The Editor suggested a more traditional public finance journal. Garbage journal, not a real journal, avoid. Journal is basically a scam now. 3 months for a desk rejection - no need to comment 4 months until desk reject. Good report, positive rec. Pretty fast, the reports are good. Editor makes no attempt to reconcile conflicting reports or, One good referee report. very efficient process but experience depends crucially on editor. Note that the shorter the time span considered, the more likely the ranking is going to be spurious. Very useful comments from referees. Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. Good experience! Editor provided quick and fair comments why the paper is not suitable for the journal. 4 months for a letter w/o referee report. The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. Too us more than a month to revise and still had doubts. Oh well, on to the next journal. Second was uninformative. Not recommended. Also sent some emails to the editors but have no replies. Meaningless reviews. Very fast and efficient. Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. Referee told to write another paper instead. Neither felt that the paper was a good fit for an urban journal. less than 2 weeks, recommended field journal. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. We asked to see the reports but the editor did not send them. In case of desk rejection, they should return the submission fee. Very low process. The report was substantive and some comments were helpful, though there was only one of them. Desk rejected the next day. 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful). The referee told us to delete the literature review. very thorough referee report, comments were mostly related to theoretical motivation, paper was submitted without much change to JFE and eventually accepted there. EJM - Econ Job Market The editor (Midrigan) collects three reports within 75 days. Clearly there were 2 initial refs: 1 suggested R&R, the other suggested rejection. I dont care whether you want to increase citations and impact factor fo your journal. Good experience. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. San Jose, CA. 1 day desk rejection by editor. Took 3 month for a simple "out of scope" notification!! Costas Meghir was editor. Suggested a top field journal! Good turnaround time. However, it was relatively fast at least. The article went online first very quickly after acceptance, which was nice. AWFUL editorial work. Editor agreed with them. Job Market. The referee must be some leading scholar in the field and I just wanna say thanks to him/her. Fair decision. Not all theory papers are welcomed. 10 days in total!!! So unprofessional and shameful. Finance Job Rumors (489,527) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,815) Micro Job Rumors (15,246) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,029) China Job Market (103,535) Industry Rumors (40,351) Instead, they should've looked at B." reports. Two referee reviews. The Referee Report was very helpful and quite positive. Editor (Taylor) gave additional advice. great reviews and useful comments for ref, only 1 referee report 3 sentences long by reviewer who did not read the paper, Good reports but very slow to get a rejection. Oh well. editor said the paper had too much economics, The editor was very helpful to summarize what he thought should be done from 4 referee reports. 2 informed reports + very detailed comments and guidance by the AE. Desk reject in one week, some good comments from editor. Have they done first-round interviews? paper proposed theory that is quite a substantial departure, so i appreciate the editor's willing to take it on. Insightful and constructive comments. No feedback at all. EER to toilet, the editors are clueless. The model is not in AE's taste. I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. totally useless editor. Long wait. One paragraph report when decision finally made. Low quality referee reports. Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. Complete waste of time!! Except when I have coauthored with someone who is at an elite school, I've been desk rejected every time at QJE. The paper was with the journal for five months and we got a rejection with only one referee report with 5 bullet points (two of which were about typos). American Economic Association Two referees in the first round, good comments. very well-run journal, Very thoughtful referee reports with clear suggestions for improvement, as well as recommendations from the co-editor for better suited journals, editor read the paper and rejected with some useful comments. All the points are addressable so I would've liked an RR but I'm not part of the club so I can't complain. Editor (Reis) worked hard on paper to make it better. Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. Modifications responded mainly to the good report. 8 Days to get a desk reject. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. I want to express my thankness to a refreee, who provded an exremly high quality report. Two weak reports. But I'm not in any club and not at an elite school (by choice). Hard to believe. One very good, detailed, and positive report. Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING. Editor rejected based on own concerns. One good report, one completely useless with only superficial, general remarks. Receive desk rejection in 24 hours, editor read the paper and suggested to top field journal. Signaling. Explains longish time to first review. Absolutely idiotic low-quality comments. The paper is now much stronger. Overall positive experience. Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. Quick desk reject, apparently considers itself a GI journal now (?). Editor cites two but only sends one. Will not submit here in the future. Finance Job Rumors (489,527) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,815) Micro Job Rumors (15,246) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,029) China Job Market (103,535) Industry Rumors (40,351) Quick turnaround. The paper is a solid analysis but does not sufficiently add to our understanding. Rejected and no reason given. Desk rejection in 3 days. Review process was very efficient. Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. With referees in 15 days of submission. Not very impressed. Paper was poorly read by the referees. 2.5 weeks. Good handling by the editor. Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. But I'm a nobody. Top scholars if it comes to RCTs, but no broaded view. Accepted once I satisfied the referees. Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". Useful and professional referee report .