10 days for desk reject. Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half. The editor is responsive. for a desk reject with quite boring paragraphs from the editor along the lines why this is not using Angrist-Pischke methods One of the referee reports was very well informed. The editor said some good words but also said he could not turn over the recommendation. Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. Two straightforward R&R recommendations from referees. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. Editor contributed with some helpful comments as well. Very fast experience at last. Bad experience. Editor said all refs must agree for acceptance but only one ref report provided! Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever. Good comments from referee and editor after five months. Great experience. 2nd round 2 months. Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. Nothing that could not be fixed in 2 days, still reject. The editor and AEs should be immediately replaced. Notice that I submitted there on the basis of the widely publicized (EEA Gothenburg) fastness of this journal. Poor reports. Very good referees. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. Both reports are not really useful. Harsh critical comments from the editor, a useful report from the referee. desk reject by kahn in 48 hours. Weird editor pushing for a change in the results. Desk rejected in 1 week. AER, JPE), but taste a factor. Accepted after two rounds of revisions. 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. Desk rejection would be normal, but the journal has changed dramatically the orientation towards family firms. Awfully slow. Editor sent it to peer review in one day. Editorial process was efficient and fair. Smooth experience, although a bit slow in getting to the paper (quick when they actually did). One recommended reject, the other R&R. However, I had issues with production, they uploaded the wrong version of my paper etc, and it looked like it wasn't even copy edited. Mildly positive referees but reject nonetheless. After ref rejection at an AEJ submitted here we followed editors suggestion and submitted to JUE. Referee told to write another paper instead. The least the editor could have done is to assign another editor. In a word, this is not a serious journal. 2 detailed comments from referees. Contact Us 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 617-868-3900 info@nber.org webaccessibility@nber.org. One useless report, but the other one is decent. Editor was really nice. Revise and Resubmit. Editor took two weeks to unconditionally accept. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. Very fair. Reject because aparently would not fit in their journal. Referee reports were very brief and contained little in the way of substantive comments. Fair referee reports, but I had to wait pretty long. Both reports were very shorts (one was just a few lines). The other did not understand the basic identification strategy in the paper. Good experience. Suggested different journals, very efficient. 1 on the fence. Overall smooth process. Revision accepted after one day. Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Ok experience. Two referee reports and one report from the associate editor. Cannot say the paper improved significantly, but it did not get worse either. That mean 5 people read my paper? A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. I had to contact the Editor after 2 months of seeing no change in status on my manuscript. Good to be fast, but quality of feedback should be taken care of more at this journal. Took 3 month for a simple "out of scope" notification!! The editor wrote the 2nd report. 3 months for desk reject with superficial comments is ridiculous. Editor agreed to R&R and suggested major changes but then didn't like the resulting paper. Monica Singhal handled the submission within a bit less than 2 months, and takes time to give a detailed opinion on the paper, impresive! Waste of submission fee. FYI: Your editor sucks). Very very good comments, referee was clearly very knowledgeable. One of the worst experience I have ever had. Editor did not add any comments. However, it was relatively fast at least. Fast desk reject. 9 months to one ref report which was not helpful. Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. It took 3 weeks to get a desk reject letter. One ref report with extremely constructive criticisms. After three months, I received an email from the editor that he still hasn't received the referee report, so he assumed the referee didn't like the paper and therefore he rejects it. The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. Referee did not even sent a report after year and a half. Not general interest enough. Massive waste of time and money. Not a good fit. Reasonable motivations for desk rejection provided, Fast desk rejection, poor targeting on my part, desk reject but with useful feedback from AE. Had 2 tough but fair r&r rounds with 2 reviewers and 1 with the editor. Seems to be unfit the reviewing editor's preference but the handling editor was kind though. Serrano handled the manuscript. No reports provided, but editor made brief helpful comments. 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. Bunche Hall 8292. Very quick response. The AE's letter was useful, although no suggestion what to try next. Excellent communication with editor. quick process, helpful reports and editor comments, Kind reject from the editor after a week, providing reasons why the paper was rejected, 6 months to receive 2 reports. Comments were useful and recommended a tier of journal to try next. short straightforward paper, should take max 2 hours to read carefully,still under review, editor (Hall) non-responsive, waiting 30 months for response, editor not responding to inquiries. Obviously, being turned down after a two-year long process and a very extensive revision is bad for a young author. OK report. Very efficient process, paper improved with referee comments. The paper was published in 2016, Decent referee reports that indeed improve the paper. Candidate Job Market Roster: Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. Four months for a desk reject! We saw no referee report and only had to deal with editor comments/suggestions. Seems like a sound reason. 5 months for a desk reject! However, it seems the process is one editor first decide whether to send to referee or not but a second editor makes the final decision (William Kerr)? Strange desk reject by editor, claiming methods weren't relevant to policy. relatively fast, but referees totally uninformed of the literature. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. Based on the comments of one more referee with few points, he rejects. The editor brought in a tie breaker 3rd, who wrote a very terse reject. Very efficient. Great experience. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. I sent an email after 5 months of submission and another after 6 months. totally useless editor. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. Ph.D. These rankings consider only the youngest economists registered with RePEc. The IJIO has a rapid review process. Three weeks for a desk reject. The quality of the report was disappointing. 2021-2022 Job Market Candidates The 2021-2022 placement director is Jane Fruehwirth. In 1974, the Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) began printing a periodical, Job Openings for Economists (JOE) (Coles etal. Emailed every six months never to any response. Two reports. in JF in the area). I knew I shot too high. referee is very fast. Katz voted to reject. My paper was a comment, so I consider this pretty slow. Decent referee report, acceptance 3 days after submitting revision. The other referee was also good and liked the paper. Fair reject with detailed reports. I am just not part of the club. And the whole process took us 8 months. 2 weeks). Ok referee reports. In the second round, the comments are from only one referee, they are easy so revise. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, Ore. Nearly 600 will lose their jobs. One of the best run journals in macro. The contribution of the paper is not enough for EL! Desk rejected in a month. This particular group controlling urban economics now will not let any differing view go through AER and JUE. But the decision was unfair. submission was in 2017. The discussant in the shitty conf gives better comments. A drawback is that it takes time. Overall, not bad experience. AE editor rejects a paper that passed the desk at much better journals. One referee was in favour of a strong R&R, the other recommended rejection on the basis of mathematical error, the AD seconded the latter. Desk reject in a week. Economist 64dd. Comments are helpful. Pathetic Three reports, one good report the other two average. 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. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). Recommend. Took 5 months in total, 2 reports, a paragraph each. Tone of the reports harsher than at better journals. it ?could ?be ?the ?case ?that ?I ?have? One high quality report. Had to send several emails inquiring about the status. nice letter from editor, good and fair comments, 1 ref report good. Good overall experience. Strongly recommend submitting there. High quality, detailed ref. One excellent and positive report. Useful reports. Not very useful comments from any of them. Editor delayed a lot. One good referee, one ok, one terrible. One referee read the paper line by line and gave constructive comments. Editor made some quick comments and recommended 3 journals a tier below. Job Market. Referee seemed have little idea about the field or didn't read my 7 page paper. Disappointed. However, he suggested that I submit my paper to a theory journal. The literature review was complete! Good referee report and very efficient editor. Editor gives no justification whatsoever. First experience with this journal. 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. Fast Resposne in 10 week. 1 month desk reject. good referee reports and relatively quick response, 1 Report after 8 months, Seemed like all points raised were easily answerable. Desk rejection in 6 minutes with a "pretended" letter, which could be used for any paper. Desk reject after 2 months. It is a very demanding R&R and we revise the paper a lot according to the suggestions, but it is worthwhile. Checked my e-mail and editor rejected the paper. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. Research Interests : Digital Platforms & Society, Regulatory Uncertainty on Digital Platforms. 3 pages of helpful comments by the editor, suggested very good field journals instead, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society). Paper drastically improved through process. Extremely constructive and useful comments, clearly from people from diverse backgrounds who engaged deeply with the paper (2 economists, 1 polsci). One referee report only. With my 4-6 data observations (different journals), EL is definitely the most efficient journal. Still, I have to contact them again after 9 weeks because they did nothing with my paper. Desk rejected. The revised submission was accepted within a month. A UK guy handles my paper and give me a desk rejection after 3 months. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. I will submit again. The editor suggested an alternative outlet, which was where the paper eventually got published. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. First report provided helpful insights, second - only half page of general comments. Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments. The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. This was back when Bill Evans was editor. Very good experience. Not good enough for general interest. Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. They pretend to look like an international journal however thay only consider studies related to Japan. HUMAN HELP: The Placement Chair for the 2022-2023 academic year is Professor Ben Handel, handel@berkeley.edu. 4 months for first report, 5 months for second, only to be rejected by referee. Better to avoid. One useful report, the other poor. 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. Would submit again. Two very useful ref reports in the first round. While harping on the issue, provided no insights as to how one can go about it. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. Complete garbage. Excellent reports that really improved the paper. No complains. It is a pity it was rejected, but I appreciate the quick response. Unbelievable! Very helpful comments. Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. !. One report very useful, and the other two not that much. Editor acknowledge that it was a bad draw. one referee report was in after three months, AE waited 9 months before making a recommendation. Drill down into the main traffic drivers in each channel below. Editor rejected the paper based on the decision of board of editor. Very good experience; desk reject with highly valuable and fair comments by the co-editor within 10 days. The referee did not understand the basic assumption of the model. The other referee has no idea what I am doing. Great experience. Reviews not very helpful as it seems like psychologists reviewed it. Worst referee report ever. Two reports negative and one positive, editor chooses to reject. I dont care whether you want to increase citations and impact factor fo your journal. The referee told us to delete the literature review. It appears they don't like overly technical papers (it's an interdisciplinary journal so depends on who the editor is at the time - if not an economist, then avoid). Answer in 24h. Decent reports. 10 days for desk rejection decision. Contribution too small. Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). Very poor quality referee report after waiting for more than 7 months. The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. Editor (and referees) rejected based on bad fit and offered suggestions for where to submit next. The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. 1 lukewarm, lazy report with many mistakes. Summary understated contribution of the paper making it looking boring. two referees with constructive comments, one referee rather negative and no substantial comment. Editor was insufficient in evaluating our paper and rejected it due to a paper cited in the reference list! The other report was *atrocious*. 2 months, the article is still under internal review DPR had my manuscript for over a year, and never even got it under review. 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". The reviewer recommended accept after seeing the revision. Although the suggested changes would have made the paper way too long for an EL pub. The other was much more careful. One referee seemed inexperienced and little informative comments. This is why our profession sucks. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. My paper was not complicated and could have been rejected in 2-3 months easily. First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. True, no time wasted, just the $125 submission fee. 3 weeks for a desk rejectand they keep the $100. Apparently JHE considers itself general interest. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. Clearly a club journal. The paper is now much stronger. Submission fee not refunded. After 7 months at the journal, I get one extremely low quality referee report. Pretty helpful reports. All suggest major revision and change of approach. Very helpful referee reports. The dynamic is well known and its implications are rather straightforward in this context. But the comments helped. After 4 months it remained Under review and these comments I get from the Reviewer: "You have a good idea. Very quick and professional editing. Referee reports are interesting and constructive. Would surely submit to it again. Less than two months for very minor revision request. Clearly he had read the paper. Just stay away! 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. And once that was done, he wanted us to rewrite the article. Very weak report. Sent a specialized financial accounting paper. Best experience in my long career (20+ years, 10+ top publications). It was a rejection but the editor (Abramitzky) read the paper and provided some additional comments that were helpful. Good comments, made the paper better.