The paper is a solid analysis but does not sufficiently add to our understanding. It is not very clear why it got rejected at the end (I guess referees recommended rejection but thsi was not stated in their reports so it coudl have been the editor who thought it was difficut to get published given the work needed). Generic letter from editor. Editor was changed, asked for electronic resubmission and paper got rejected. Wouldn't submit here again. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. Desk reject after 30 hours, helpful comments from the editor. Both referees have good understanding of the topic. Interesting use of a referee's time. In May 2016 the editor promised a decision within a days. Horrible experience. Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. Obviously, being turned down after a two-year long process and a very extensive revision is bad for a young author. One of the papers has over 3000 citations. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. One referee with very helpful reports. Really smooth process. Good editing process. I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know very quick. Clearly scanned the paper, deemed not general enough, and recommended other outlets. Complete garbage. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. four reports. Good first round reports, took a while to respond to all the comments. Third report seemed written by a sage speaking in amharic, most statements were elliptical in nature, and we were left wondering what the referee's point had been. Desk reject after 2 months. Was contacted again after another two years promising that my paper was to be considered, and say yes please do. Ref Reports: I'd say one okay, the other so-so. Analytic number theorists: your opinion on TK's claimed disproof of the RH ? Reviews were fair. One positive review, one negative, editor took the side of the negative. Two referee reports. Happy with process. Although desk-rejected, I am very satisfied. Took quite long for a desk rejection. Going through 15 months of the reviewing process. Two entirely reasonable reports. Rigor of the paper increased greatly because of the refereeing process. Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. One synthetic but straight to the point referee report, asking for very specific and reasonable corrections to the paper. 1 Referee provided useful comments that improved the paper. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. Great experience. Overall a good experience! Couldn;t get second referee so editor said he read carefully himself. The editor emailed me after 6 days and said he read and liked the paper. Very helpful comments. Reject and resubmit although both referees and AE advised revision. The editor simply did not read the paper, since he presented no specific comment whatsoever about it, nor any recommendation. Stay away from this journal if you do not have a connection from inside. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. Job Market Candidates | Department of Economics But the comments helped. Still my favorite rejection of all time - used Shakespeare in a footnote, and first referee (whose English was subpar) said that the footnote was "very poorly written." There was supposed to be a third referee report that was not received, which may have been the reason for the time between submission to decision. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. Claudia Sahm - Wikipedia Excellent editorial service from Bruno Biais. The editor rejected after 12 months mentioning 4 referee reports. Ref reports both frank and helpful. paper is short so 6 months for each round is very long. I had a paper that was to be revised and the review was very positive. Decent referee reports. Some helpful comments. No letter from an Associate Editor, so no idea about who rejected the paper. Very useful referee reports. Applied Economics was usually getting back to me in 6 months or even more, this time I had great experience. Gorodnichenko was nice. Horrible experience. Some warm words from the editor. rejected by editor, saying should submit to other similar journal. Very happy LRM made it past desk. Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Putea MatuaWellington - New Zealand, Assistant Director, Economics The most underutilized channel is Paid Search. Great experience. Very quick rejection, but I received a nice response from one of the co-editors. Too slow for a short paper, AE spent 4+ months to write very short and useless report. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. This is designed to reduce the overall turnaround time for the journal, especially given the high volume of submissions." Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Insightful and constructive comments. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. Fast and very competent review. Waste of time and money. The current reality of the economics job market is this. I will never submit these bullshits to the editor who trusts me. Extremely outdated econometric "suggestions" and an overall lack of understanding. Terrible report. 2.5 months to get a RR. Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow. Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. Reason for rejection was editor thought paper belonged in `less selective' journal. Paper: "Regulating the Sharing Economy: A Study of Unlawful Providers". Rejected afterwards. Editor identity unknown. Might have been better if they said they hate the paper. Very bad reports from non economists. Very disappointing to have no word on a paper that got R&R with minor revisions in a similar ranked journal half a year later, Desk rejection after three months, editor apologized for delay, Desk accepted, sent to R&R for less than a month. It took them 13 months to tell us that the article was better suitable for a different journal, Generic Desk Reject - Fortunately they only took 2 days. Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. 1 months for desk reject. Both referees were concerned about identification, but did not suggest how to fix. Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. Thanks for quick decision. recommend to send to some other theory journals but those theory journals have said I should send to this journal. Two referee reports: one decent, one poor. Recommended second tier general interest journals. I was politely told that I should have cited more JRU papers. Not anymore. Desk rejected in a week. Editor was Mogde. Evidence of a Toxic Environment for Women in Economics The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. Very disappointing experience with the journal and refereeing process. Response time was decent. Going into the ninth month with no response. Great experience! International Review of Financial Analysis. almost useless and the editor is too slow. The Referee Report was very helpful and quite positive. Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper. Got the rejection after 185 days, referees like to wait until the last couple of days to read papers! Excellent experience, the editor was clear on what is required after first round RR. One very positive and helpful report, one negative report. Other referee didn't have a clue. Slow. Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports. It was almost like somebody pickpocketed and got my $600, had to pay $100 instead of the usual submission fee. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. Useful reports, good summary by editor. Two reports. Suggested to submit to a good journal. One useful referee report and one that was not. Editor letter saying that what we do is not so new. The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! A drawback is that it takes time. Desk reject in a few hours with very impersonal email. Shockingly low quality reports that were nearly identical. Overall I think this journal should get a more diverse editorial board. Editor was Barro. Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. Paper was never sent to the reviewers as per the email. Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. We made almost all of the changes required by the referees and the editor accepted it. Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. Kind and informed letter from editor. Fast desk reject (Ciccone), after few days. Nedless to say I got no referee report even after asking. Referees obviously did not read the paper. Editor was polite. Editors only pick those with close network. Report was fair and helpful and editor's letter was kind. The process was fair, with good pace. My paper was not complicated and could have been rejected in 2-3 months easily. R&R after 3-4 months. 48 hour DR, no particular comments from Shleifer except interesting paper, suggest AEJ:applied. At least the process was fast. Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. Fair decision. He sends you an email that he carefully read the paper and then you follow up a day after asking him about a clarification and his response was that he did not remember. There was no mistake. No refund. Submission fee refund. Paper was poorly read by the referees. Ref #1 created new issues after I addressed his first round. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again, Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees. At least turnaround time was fast: 14 days. "not enough contribution". useless reports. 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. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. Decision by editor (Mark Taylor): minor revision and resubmit. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. Editor Ian Walker gave us a fantastic referee report. Still, was super fast and allows to improve the paper. DR after one week. One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. R&R only one round; after submitting the revised version, only waited for six days until final acceptance. Third referee was slow and did not provide public report (he caused the delay). desk with a letter from editor. 8 months after submission, an in-depth and articulated referee report with many comments. Outcome was positive in the end, but I had to follow some nonsense instructions from the referees and the editor. Not so much from the Associate Editor. There's this cute girl who plays guitar very badly in just her bra on YouTube, Hyatt Hotels, Data Scientist- posted one week ago, 982 applicants, Young men reveal why so many of them are single: Dates feel more like job inter, A day in the life of childless single broette, "Just get an industry job" - It's not that simple. This was after a 6 month wait and emails to the editor to follow up. 3 reports. 4 weeks for desk rejection is too much. Which.a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject. Campus visits. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. Terribly run journal. I am asked to send to another journal because the paper is not a good fit, the editor is very nice, professional and efficient. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. Useless reports. Reject due to the non-response by the referee. a bit slowtwo general positive+one negative reports, and the editor rejected itfeel sad, but not too bad experience Average (low) quality reports. very good experience and fast acceptance after addressing referees' comments. No surprising, but referee report was sloppy and incorrect. Super fast and clear feedback. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Instead, she just re-sent me her rejection (from when she was a referee before). Seems like a sound reason. Shameless people. After 8 months of waiting, got the shortest referee paper ever. Would not bother again. All suggest major revision and change of approach. If? Lots of puffed up explanation marks and faux outrage. Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. I felt as if 65$ has evaporated from my pocket. Unbelievable! No complaints. Homepage; What a joke! The editor is responsive. Pretty fast, the reports are good. Made some changes, argued against other changes, got accepted. Not recommended. Absolutely pathetic. 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 poor referee reports. Quick rejection (Canova, 5 days), professional, very acceptable decision. Made paper better. The editor barely read the paper and decided to reject! great experience. 1 good report and 2 of low quality probably written by grad students. Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School, Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO), Majewska (TSE), Seibel (Zurich), Deng (UMD), Lesellier (TSE), Vanhapelto (TSE), Suzuki (PSU), Leroutier (SSE), Lorentzen (BI Oslo), Guigue (CREST), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Bou Sleiman (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Moreno-Maldonado (CUNEF), Khalifa (AMSE), Kondziella (IIES), Merilinen (ITAM); see https://www.helsinkigse.fi/events/category:job-talk, Assistant/Associate/Full Professor - Environmental Economics, Song (USC), Kwon (Cornell), Sileo (Georgetown), Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Hyuk-soo Kwon (Cornell University), Sean McCrary (University of Pennsylvania), Gretchen Sileo (Georgetown), Stephanie Weber (Yale University), Sadhika Bagga (UT Austin), Ricardo Marto (University of Pennsylvania), Martin Souchier (Stanford University). When pressed, editor said we weren't doing the same things as everyone else. Fair decision and process, 2 mildly positive reviews, editor shot it down. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. happy for a quick decision. Massive waste of time and money. Poor and unhelpful referee reports, club journal. Very bad experience. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. Bad experience overall, although the reports came quickly. The revised submission was accepted within a month. Referee report was reasonable and improved the manuscript. Two reports with mixed view. Submitted reports from a previous (close) referee rejection at a higher ranked journal. it.?I? One report was very useful and of very good quality, the other was of good quality but not very useful. Unbased rejection after more than six months with mediocre reports and editorial justification. Jerome Adda was editor. Accepted after two rounds. Mediocre assessment from referee with some helpful suggestions. All excellent reports, and good suggestions from the co-editor about what to focus on and where to send next. Cool editor. get first response in 28 days. 6 weeks for a desk reject. Average turnaround time was rather long for AEJ standards. What a terrible journal. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. This journal still has the word economics in its tile, please stop asking clueless marketing types to referee! Seems to be a fair process, 13 months for editor to desk reject because the paper has no empirical section, One good report, very constructive, the other one rejecting the paper. Reports with no use, in one case even mentioning the need of something that was already done in the paper. 2nd very short and useless, referee probably spent 10 mins on it. However, he suggested that I submit my paper to a theory journal. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. This paper has just been accepted in a top transportation journal now. Do not submit to this journal. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. The other did not understand the basic identification strategy in the paper. Strange desk reject by editor, claiming methods weren't relevant to policy. 20 months to acceptance since first submission. Costas Meghir responses all submissions. 2 (ridiculous) referee reports, poor handling by the editor. This journal is a scam. Awesome experience. Contribution too small. The reason for rejection was that my paper was too specific for their readers. Reports were ok, but total process took way too long. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. In all the rejection was fair. Waited 6 months for one report, from which it was clear that the referee hadn't even read the paper properly. reports show referees were serious. As best I can tell, the purpose is to use a particular modeling framework to illustrate that a trade policies defined in terms of 'import-export' quotas cannot yield a Nash equilibrium of the trade game. Economic Theory Bulletin. Avoid that journal. Quick response from referees and editor. Editor also read the paper and took the call - explained that the paper was better suited at a good field journal given referee assessments of contribution to literature. Useful letter from the editor. No comments at all from editor other than generic stuff. Desk rejected within 1 week. Reason given: "not general enough." Otrok rejected within 7 days; considerable comments on the paper, though the three major points are either just wrong or addressed (one of them prominently) in the introduction of the paper. Referee did not even sent a report after year and a half. Mod's pls delete it. They will help to improve the paper. Overall positive experience. Good editor. 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. Overall efficient and fair but demanding process. Waited over 9 month for a half-page low quality report. One of my best experiences. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! The other is constructive but not as good. Will never submit here. But then, it took 20 weeks until we got the acceptance. Pleasant first publication experience. Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. Encouraging and polite comments from editor. Fast and fair. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. Ref. He/she states that a particular model delivers a set of results, although I show that it does not. EJM - Econ Job Market Very unprofessional. The referees gave great feedback to improve the paper. 2/2 referee reports were positive and suggested R&R because the contribution was significant enough. Reports were split. Ultimately, Editor rejected as felt it was not general purpose enough. The positive report points out more contributions than we claim. 16 hour turnaround with nice letter of thoughtful comments suggesting more specialized journal. Rejected after revision for reasons that had nothing to do with the revision and should've been brought up on the first decision. Useless experience. It is run by "Kirk", [1] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. It has had it uses as a source of gossip but it accumulated the worst of any group of mostly 20 something American men. Smooth process. said it was a matter of fit. Two competent reviewers, one slightly hostile, one friendly. Georgetown University - McDonough School of Business, Associate Professor or Assistant Professor, International Political Economy, Georgetown University McDonough School of Business, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, International Finance/Macro - Macroeconomics; Monetary, Chaudary (Chicago Booth); Chan (Stanford); Minni (LSE); Vats (Chicago Booth), Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Giacomo Lanzani (MIT), Jacob Moscona (MIT), Agathe Pernoud (Stanford), Rahul Singh (MIT), Daniela Vidart (UCSD/UConn), Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, Assistant Professor of Economics and Public Policy, Christensen (UIUC AP) Reimers (Northeastern AP) Kwon (Cornell) Newberry (UGA AP) Lee (Princeton) Serna (Wisconsin) He (Yale) Alba (Toronto) Yang (Duke) Weber (Yale) Craig (Yale) Rogers (UCSD), International Economics/Industrial Organization, Yajie Wang (University of Rochester), Hyunji Song (Texas A&M University), Yumeng Gu (University of California-Davis), Yes (1st round complete. While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. had no economic relevance and was not worth being sent out to a referee. The paper was published in 2016, Decent referee reports that indeed improve the paper. referee and AE comments, OK at best. The review process yielded good referee reports in round 1. The model is not in AE's taste. very good and fair comments in a short time, Two good reports plus some comments from editor. Editor provided detailed advice throughout the entire revision process. Split reports but very clear advice from editor. Paper went multiple rounds over 2 years. My impession was that the editor did not understand the paper the first time (hence no comments the first time) and clearly did not understand the unprofessional behavior of the referees. Very fast. But the discipline should find another way. Desk rejected. 2 months for decision from being notified that "reviews received" and one of the referee reports was dated 7 months ago. Assistant Professor of Economics Columbia University Visiting Research Associate (2022-23) BFI at the University of Chicago Research Network Affiliate CESifo Network Links: Cognition and Decision Lab DRIPs Curriculum Vitae Google Scholar Contact: ha2475@columbia.edu . After more data were collected, the editor said "a referee suggested empirical work was not serious enough." Emailed the editor at JPE for a brief explanation of why the paper was desk rejected so that I could improve it. With referees in 15 days of submission. They raised concerns that very literally addressed in section heads. Editor was also very helpful. The former editors at the penn state just issued reject to relieve their editorial jobs. Three high quality reports that have helped to improve the paper. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject.