econ job market rumors wiki

The site, commonly known as econjobrumors.com (its full name is Economics Job Market Rumors), began as a place for economists to exchange gossip about who is hiring and being hired in the . not broad enough, it seems that JHR considers themselves as a general interest journal. 2 decent reports. Desk-rejected after one week without any substantial or specific comment, apart recommending to submit to a specialist journal. I get it. Placement Director - Alessandro Pavan Email: alepavan@northwestern.edu. AVOID it. Massive work. Made paper better. One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. Very pleasant experience. Extensive, constructive and mildly positive ref report. Good process. 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. Good handling by the editor. 1 was very low quality -- couple of bullet points that made clear reviewer had not read paper. As we addressed all issues in between and it better fitted EL, it was accepted without revision. Very long time for first response. Faster than I expected (3 months). Reviews not very helpful as it seems like psychologists reviewed it. Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow. Will never submit again. An incompetent referee and an editor that could not care less of how slow the process was: a lethal combo, Quick decision, with some useful comments in the reports. May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. One very good set of comments. Was a longshot. 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) Will submit again in the future! In short, he left us only one option: not to resubmit. Do not submit there. the ?author? AEA-Committee on the Job Market; Cawley, John, A Guide and Advice for Economists on the U. S. Junior Academic Job Market, 2018-19 edition Johannes Pfiefer maintains a catalog of job market tip pages and resources Resources for applying to government positions - L&S Career Site for Govt, Policy, International Affairs, writing a . Referee claims no revisements were made after substantial revisements were made and detailed. I waited for seven months, only to receive one superficial referee report. Two and a half months for a desk reject for lack of fit. Waited 13 months to two mildly positive reports. The Editor suggested a more traditional public finance journal. Isn't it so obvious?" Desk rejected by Katz within 24 hours. Referees and editor reports were incredibly useful, Shitty ref report. Some helpful comments. 2010 . Fast and fair. Still took 3 months. In a typical year, every MIT Economics PhD graduate finds a job. 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) One seems to be written by a first-year bachelor student. Got a form letter in 10 days. The paper was accepted few days after the revised version has been submitted. avoid. Would choose again. Special issue editor started to referee himself. At least it was fast. The first revision took around 5 months. Job Market. It is definitely not worth the long wait! Job Market. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. Fast and serious journal. Editor offers insightful suggestions as well. Less than 24 hours.Rogert J. Barro was the editor. Overall great experience. They pocketed the submission fee, though! One ref in favor, one against. Very good referee reports. Bad experience. Within a week, Laura Schechter clearly went through the paper and give it a thought with a couple of helpfull comments. Desk reject within 1 day. faculty) positions. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. "Thank you for your paper. 2 months with almost no answer, although the journal claims desk rejections are within days. Our paper is rejected after receiving one referee report. Hostile report stating "I do not belive your assumptions", editor ignored it. Good experience. I am asked to send to another journal because the paper is not a good fit, the editor is very nice, professional and efficient. Quick desk rejection from the Editor (about a week). Overall, great experience despite the negative outcome, The WORST experience of my rather long life. While the ref rejection runied my day, I must conclude that the process was very efficient and the editors/refs earned every penny of the submission fee based on the feedback I received. Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data. Flores, Jairo. The least the editor could have done is to assign another editor. In-depth argumentation why there is no sufficient progress compared to common wisdom. Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. One good report, the other one poor. Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. One reviewer was ok after the first R&R. President, University of Applied Sciences in Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Good comments, made the paper better. One ok report, one poor. I waited six weeks for an inaccurate, one paragraph referee report? of? 1 R&R round. Quick response. Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. Useful but demanding referee reports. Katia Meggiorin. Maybe the paper did not merit publication in JMCB but that referee report was really ridiculous. Referee 1 happy with resubmission (no further comments), referee 2 suggested rejection or major rewriting. Very impressed with comments received by the co-editor (Mark Armstrong), which were more substantive than the reviewers. Reports were not very helpful. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. One useful referee report and one that was not. One referee liked the paper but had doubts about the Y variable (kiss of death); other referee turned in a three page report but missed the point of the paper completely (while asking us to delete the explanation which would have answered his questions). Basically, just a short e-mail saying that it cannot be accepted and it is more suited to some other types of Journals. Withdrew paper after one year without signs of life. Quick desk reject, apparently considers itself a GI journal now (?). best submission experience. Probably he sent the paper to referees because he couldn't desk reject it, but his mind was made-up before hand. Perhaps the worst experience ever. Job Market | Department of Economics | Virginia Tech Generic letter saying the paper was not fit to general interest journal. Except when I have coauthored with someone who is at an elite school, I've been desk rejected every time at QJE. Old fashined. The paper was accepted quickly after revision. Editor rejected after R&R without providing any referee report (note: journal name has now changed to International Journal of Health Economics and Management, International Journal of Industrial Organization. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. First response in less than 3 months. At least the process was fast. Strange desk reject by editor, claiming methods weren't relevant to policy. Good referee report + some comments from AE. 51 of 55 African countries snub Ukraine Economics Job Market Rumors Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. Grad student who manages inbox for ed took bad review at face value. Both reports very helpful, AE comments showed that he did not understand the paper. Reports have very clear constructive instructions and fast response. Very good comments from both reviewers and the editor, Frank Sloan. Special fast-track call. Generic letter. We do not need dumb editors!! Horrible treatment. But it does move my prior of affiliation doesnt matter, just the paper (yes, a prior that no one here seems to have). 2/2 referee reports were positive and suggested R&R because the contribution was significant enough. Very bad experience. One excellent and positive report. Fair reject with detailed reports. Editing is a service and it is not mandatory. Okay experience overall, 3 weeks for a two sentence desk rejection which suggested submitting to a more specialist journal, Overall good experience. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. Submitted in 2012. Mod's pls delete it. Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper. 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. One nasty and not helpful review, but two others were very constructive. 2 referees were positive throughout the process, one was an outright acceptance. Desk rejected within two weeks. Otherwise, efficient process, decent reports. Re-submission took a week to be finally be accepted. will definitely try it again next time. More importantly, the analysis is flawed by a number of major shortcomings. Editor rejected. Desk rejection in one week. There are some great papers in the journal; I would think it would get a higher impact factor. Reason cited: weak paper. Fast editors. Unanswered letters to editor by the 6th and 12th months after submission, only got reply after getting in touch to editorial office. However we had make all of the referee's suggestions and the outcome was not positive. Desk rejected in 2 days. Departament | Facultat d'Economia i Empresa - Job Market Candidates Two excellent (and supportive) referee reports. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. Encouraging and polite comments from editor. Editor provided detailed advice throughout the entire revision process. Very fast process. Great experience - referee reports really helped improve the paper. Disappointed. Complete waste of time and money. Desk Reject, No Comment, Horrible Experience- THEY DO NOT REFUND the submission fee. One low quality (taste-based) referee report. Unbased rejection after more than six months with mediocre reports and editorial justification. Didn't make the paper better at all. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. Two referee reports: one decent, one poor. After 14 month a desk rejection arrived. Absolutely pathetic. Chat (0) Conferences. The second round of review only took 3 weeks. Will never submit here again. Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. In really sped things up. Disappointing as paper got some fine ref reports in another top journal and revised. I dont care whether you want to increase citations and impact factor fo your journal. Best experience in my long career (20+ years, 10+ top publications). After more than 3 months of waiting, the paper was rejected with a one-sentence referee report. R&R, then reject. Helpful comments from referees and relatively fast. In the first three, the referees took 3 months and tehn 9 months to take care of comments. San Jose, CA. 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. All are lengthy and constructive. Rejected because topic did not fit the journal. 3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal. Editor also gave very detailed description of the necessary changes. One referee report only. Other referee reports are okay, not very useful. After another three months, the paper was reject on the basis of a presumed 2nd referee report, only with a few lines, that says the paper is "well structured, well written, and deploys sound econometric methodology", but "does not add value to the existing literature". two weeks. 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). Editor was Andrew Street. Referees did not bother to read the paper. The Editor sugested the JIE. Reminded several times and after waiting 1 year got one referee report. The other reviewer raised some minor issues. It seems from this website that this in not uncommon for this journal. Seems the process is very efficient with the new editorial board, Fantastic experience: fast and very good comments. Good reports - detailed and constructive. 2 week desk reject. Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor. The third one very general and less useful. Editor argued I had observational data and no identification, hence instant rejection. Editor read and carefully considered the paper. Great experience. it.?I? Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. Unfortunately the paper is rejected but I hope the reports help you improve the paper for another journal. Good experience. Pretty sure the editor didn't even read the paper. Not sure I'll ever submit something to RED again. Editor Chandra took four months to desk reject a straightforward empirical paper. reports show referees were serious. Not of broad interest. I'll definetly will submit again. Waste of time. Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. Response time was decent. Unfair decision. It's time for the journal to kick out some unprofessional referees. Great process, fast and fair. Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. 2 months for a generic desk rejection with not 1 signle comment on the paper. It seems to me that this was an easy way for the new Editor to reject the paper! Waited for almost a year and sent a couple of emails to the editor; promised us a response in two weeks. Ref reports quite useful. WE got 3 tough and long referee reports. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. Poor report! The paper got rejected anyways. candidates received letter saying search now closed- did anyone get the position? JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending). Editorial processes were very fast. One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. Clear suggestions with R&R decision from Hillary Hoynes. Have they done first-round interviews? EJM - Econ Job Market Bad experience, there was a long wait of mroe than 10 months to get 2 referee reports that did not like the the paper (but not so sure why). The negative one is essentially saying "it's not game theory so I don't care." no comments given. 3 reports. desk with a letter from editor. Conveyed no sense at all that anyone even looked at the paper. Reviewing all the documents, she does not like the paper: rejection with 800 words of blabla. Very fast and professional referee reports. more months, before rejection based on superficial comments. the journal is recovering. Applied Economics was usually getting back to me in 6 months or even more, this time I had great experience. Referee says R&R, but editor decides to reject outright. Editor chose to follow the suggestion of the AE. Very fast rounds with very insightful and reasonable referee reports and suggestions by the editor. fast response but low quality referee reports, fast and reliable journal. I was surprised these two letters resulted in the overall reject. The other report was useless. Poor quality reports. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. Scam. Duh, Very helpful response from editor giving specific reasons that the manuscript would not be sent to referees, Thanks for your joining the Society, by the way, we don't think your historical paper with brand new historical data is right for a history journal. One positive report, one negative, editor's reject decision. Terrible referee report referee made contradictory statements and econometric mistakes in report. American Economic Association 6 months to desk reject with little reason. it was in 2016. Editor actually read the paper. Decent referee reports. Great experience. Useless comments. Two rounds of R&R. She admitted having forgotten about it until 8 months later and sent us a rejection. Sadly, no mention of why paper was rejected (only minor issues raised). Excellent ref report. Editor agreed = reject. Took 6 weeks. The AE also provided his own review. Not being up to claimed "high-speed dissemination" standards. Paper was accepted two days later. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. Great experience.

Ch3oh Dissolve In Water Equation, Dove Refillable Deodorant Australia, Reorder Tone Panasonic, Lightning Softball Logo, Articles E