low-quality referee reports. Bad experience. Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. Bradshaw AdvisoryLondon/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds - UK. rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. Very impressed with comments received by the co-editor (Mark Armstrong), which were more substantive than the reviewers. In an attempt to argue that young women and girls, many in their teens, voluntarily contracted themselves into sex work at the so-called "comfort stations" set up by the Imperial Japanese military during World War II, the article contains a . Disappointing as paper got some fine ref reports in another top journal and revised. good reports. Victoria Ziqi Hang (U of Washington), Freddie Papazyan (UCSD), Lukas Bolte (Stanford), Christine Szerman (Princeton), Alfonsi (Berkeley), Raghav Malhotra (Warwick), Regina Seibel (Zurich), Philipp Wangner (Toulouse), Anna Vitali (UCL), Morten Grindaker (BI Business School), Tony Fan (Stanford), Elena Ashtari Tafti (UCL), Xiao Shan (Zurich), Andre Sztutman (MIT), Via Twitter: Matranga (Chapman), Barreto (Sciences Po), Coly (PSE), Galvez (Banco de Espaa), Petracchi (Brown), Miglino (UCL), Casella (UPenn), Morzenti (Bocconi), Perdoni (Edinburgh), Possnig (UBC), Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson), Borghesan (Penn), Van der Beck (Swiss Finance Institute and EPFL), Ferey (LMU), Seibel (Zurich), Acquatella (Harvard), D'Adamo (UCL), Vattuone (Warwick), Mugnier (CREST), Decker (Zurich), Morazzoni (UPF), Decker (Zurich), Altmann (Oxford), Jin (BU & CMU), Diegert (Duke), Guigue (CREST), Leroutier (SSE), Ramakrishnan (WUSTL), Souchier (Stanford), Banchio (Stanford GSB), Sullivan (Yale), Acquatella (Harvard), Jin (BU), Diegert (Duke), Herstad (Chicago), Schaner (USC),Gudgeon (West Point), Wiseman (Berkeley), Kochar (USC), Li (MIT Sloan), Ostriker (MIT), Zou (Oregon AP), U.S. Very good experience overall. Awesome experience. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff. Jerome Adda was editor. EconJobRumors Wiki Terrible screening process at this journal. He clearly did not read the paper and wrote a pretty much standard rejection that had nothing to do with the paper. 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. Pleasant experience overall. Got accepted after a week. Initial demanding R&R. Other than that, the process was good. Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. Good quality reports for a low-ranked journal, though. Rejected within a few hours - unclear that associate editor had read the paper carefully, rather than just the limited 100 word abstract, since comments repeated points made within the paper. One referee waited for 182 days to submit his/her report as there was a time stamp on the report. In-depth argumentation why there is no sufficient progress compared to common wisdom. Formal letter in less than 10 days returning my manuscript. Editor obviously read over the paper and gave a couple of helpful comments. Terribly run journal and I wouldn't advise anyone to submit there. Suggested top field journal. PDF Young Stars in Economics: What They Do and Where They Go Decent reports, no complain. Very good experience. The status has been "Pending Editor Triage" for 10 months. desk rejected in a week. Very good reports that help us to improve the paper a lot. The paper is mostly empirical and they asked for massive extension of the dataset. One of the best run journals in macro. Desk reject in two weeks. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again, Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees. Worked butt off to respond to them. Super standard rejection letter from Olivier Coibion, no advice whatsoever Two months to a desk reject, with zero information from the editor's response. Two entirely reasonable reports. Fast turn around with great referee reports that significantly improved the paper. Then took about 14 months to be come out in print. withdrew the paper after contacting the journal twice. Job Market. 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. Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. The worst experience I ever had in over 20 years. The model is not presented in a clear and intelligible way. Quick desk reject, apparently considers itself a GI journal now (?). Bad experience, waste of money and time. Engineering at HPE The editor did give us advice to split the paper in two, although he didn't really provide a justification for rejection. Resubmitted in 2 days, accepted after resubmission in 10 days. Absolutely pathetic handling by Horner. 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. Desk rejected in a few days. Bad experience. 1 really excellent, positive report. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. It was clear that the referees read the paper and provided appropriate comments. Very long process. The peer review process was fast. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. 1 serious person pushing his method. Not being up to claimed "high-speed dissemination" standards. 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. Extremely fast and helpful. There is only one report called review number 2! The editor, Gideon Saar, was lazy and did not read the paper. But it does move my prior of affiliation doesnt matter, just the paper (yes, a prior that no one here seems to have). From the abstract to the conclusion, we kept arguing like "A is not the main point, we should look at B." Great process, fortunate to make it past desk as LRM grad student, very helpful ref report received 8 days after submission. Also revisions handled quite efficiently! Reports with no use, in one case even mentioning the need of something that was already done in the paper. Very satisfied with the experience. Excellent communication with editor. 1 helpful report. Rejected but with excellent reports. Editor from outside of the field (empirical corporate fin) did not think that my paper (ap theory) is interesting. Very good handling of the process. Editor guidance also helpful. Very good reports. Terrible experience - slow and unjustified decision. Editor (frank) did not read the paper and wrote 2 lines arguing that there were many papers addressing similar question (which was not entirely true). The editor, one AE and some referees (in the first stage there was only one, completely irrelevant) have insulted my intelligence. "Growing by the Masses: Revisiting the Link between Firm Size and Market . Referee comments generally useful and positive, but guest editor made desicsion to reject given preferences - fair enough really. Do not send your papers to this journal. Very good experience: I wish all my rejected submissions were as fast and polite. One good report, the other one poor. Hence, terrible. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. Reason given: "not general enough." quick process but the editor provided no information and was impolite. Second round--took less than a month to get 2 detailed second reports from referees--impressive! fast turnaround. Editor desk rejected stating that paper (which was on the program of Top 3 conferences etc.) $100 fee refunded. Good reasons for rejection; comments improved paper for next submission. two years is a bit too long, especially given that it will take more than a year before the paper appears in the journal. Download the MIT Economics Job Market Packet. Moderately useful reports. A good referee report and very efficient editor. Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! I revised as a new submission based on comments from a previous reviewer at the journal, referee report was short, but demonstrated expertise, could have addressed all of the comments but ultimately rejected under KS. Finance Job Rumors (489,493) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,790) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,019) China Job Market (103,530) Industry Rumors (40,349) be viewed as too specific. Referees' comments were useful. It is a very demanding R&R and we revise the paper a lot according to the suggestions, but it is worthwhile. Editor is very efficient and professional. Accepted 3 days after resub even though the initial decision was RR with 'major revisions'. Amazing efficiency. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. would? The first note of the referee claimed that I didn't do something I clearly did. Good editor. Desk rejection within two weeks. Very useful comments. Process ended after 1 report. Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. Withdrew paper after one year without signs of life. Although the referee comments were in detail some of them were really out of the scope. Very constructive and useful for revisions. Took about two weeks. Horrible. Our paper went through four rounds and finally accepted after one year of its submission. (are we a bit paranoiac?). Both read, understood and gave a few comments. Technical issues handled by non-experts. Going into the ninth month with no response. You can even not see these wordings in Game of Thrones. The overall comments are OK. Actually, not as bad as many people think.Reports by referee and AE were of little help (they raised a few valid points), but this can happen at any other journal too. Decision was made in 45 days. Took 3 month for a simple "out of scope" notification!! Not belonging to the club implies rejection. Shame on you, AE. Xavier Vives rejected the paper after 4 rounds and 2 years based on the recommendation of an incompetent referee who couldn't understand the paper and kept making bogus claims about errors in the analysis or interpretation in every round. He recommended me to send it to a more specialized field journal. Should I choose Stanford, Columbia, or UChicago for an undergraduate Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). The paper was accepted after I incorporated all suggestions in R&R. Journal of International Money and Finance. Also very fast. After about 1 year of wait, the editor decided to reject the submission on the basis of 1 report (2 referees did not respond) that contained only 2-3 lines that already work was done on the topic (although appreciating the empirical analysis). Desk reject in 4 hours. Actually, it was overall positive. 2 quality ref reports + brief comments by editor. Editor and refs liked the topic but not the empirical strategy. one ok, one very short and superficial referee report. Would submit here again now that I know what to expect. To get rejected in a good journal, that is ok since it is part of the business but waiting 10 moths for refereee reports of that quality was a really bad deal. Reviewers did not understand anything. Crappy reports. 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". Under 2 weeks for a desk reject. Editors keep delaying despite returned reports, seems to be a pattern with this journal. Two sloppy reports, one useful. Unfortunately paper was assigned to handling editor who was on study leave. A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. One was good and one was particularly bad with a lot of non-english expressions. Wish the outcome was different, but the turnaround time couldn't have been better. Bad experience. Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. 1 short report (but good points) and 1 very long report.