Editor did not catch these oversights. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience! Emailed journal to withdraw submission after 14 months. Recommended field journal, and it was in fact eventually published in the top field journal. Two very helpful reports and encouraging letter from AE. Quickly accepted after the revisions were completed. Overall- great experience. Editor seemed to have liked the paper despite ref rejection. Fairly long wait though. The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. One referee read the paper line by line and gave constructive comments. Two referee reports. Reasonable comments from referees. Very polite desk rejection. Drill down into the main traffic drivers in each channel below. Good to be fast, but quality of feedback should be taken care of more at this journal. Rare experience where every round made paper much better. faculty) positions. Desh rejected in less than a week. The paper was not a good fit for the journal and another journal was recommended. My first ever publication. good reports; excellent editor who acts like an additional referee. 1 Ref suggested R&R, Galasso decided to reject, Two referees, one useful and helpful, the other clearly not an expert in the field. Editors keep delaying despite returned reports, seems to be a pattern with this journal. Overall good experience. Two reviews - one very positive, and one that was clearly from someone outside of the field that was not familiar with the methods or the literature. desk rejected after more than 2 months, very generic motivation (try a field journal), they took the submission fees and thanked me a lot for the payment! What would be a fair solution to racial reconcilation issues in the USA? Took about 2.5-3 months for first response which detailed a lot of work - two R & R decisions, each of which took about 2 months for referees to get back on. A bit slow, but good comments by the referee. Horrible editorial process. Fast and efficient. had another paper desk rejected by the same editor two years ago, text motivating the rejection was exactly the same (copy + paste) plus an additional 2 sentences explaining why the editor dislikes the approach chosen in the paper, Major revisions at the first round and then accepted. multiple rounds, one of round took about a year. Extremely long wait at this journal for comments. One nice and one not nice referee. Too slow. Paid $100 to read "that the Journal of Public Economics can only accept about 10 percent of the submissions for publication. Do not submit there. Almost 4 weeks for desk rejection. We got referee rejection in 2.5 months: 2 referees, one favours RR, other rejects. The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. Desk reject would have been more efficient, They editors are very efficient. One ok report, one poor. Extremly disappointing for a journal which claims to be the number one field journal. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Editor Michele Boldrin did a good job handling the paper. Editor was polite. Good experience. Fair process and good report. I am not sure the referee knows the topic area well enough. Very unprofessional. It was quick. The editor simply did not read the paper, since he presented no specific comment whatsoever about it, nor any recommendation. Rejected after one round of review despite all referee comments being addressed. 4 months for a desk rejection, frustratingly slow. In? Some good comments from referees, overall a good experience. OK report. One is OK, other one is exteremly negative. Garbage journal, not a real journal, avoid. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied. Very smooth process. Awesome experience. Fast response time. Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. No discussion on the ID strategy, nor the novelty of the data. The negative one says there is no methodology novelty. 1 good, 1 okay and one bad review. reports. Could've desk-rejected instead of two useless referee reports. Reject with two referee reports, one gives constructive comments, one rejects with half a page report, saying the paper is not for a general readership. Submission fee not refunded. Mark Ramseyer. 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). Editor was polite. Overall, not bad experience. Emailed twice to ask about status and no decency of even replying. Very quick rejection, but I received a nice response from one of the co-editors. I pulled the paper and send it elsewhere. Excellent and detailed report, fair decision. Efficient and professional. Overall, it was a good experience. The editor did not even get that the comments were wrong. No substantive comments about the content of the paper at all. They did not send an offer last year either. Taburet (LSE), Leombroni (Stanford), Puglisi (Northwestern), Wangner (TSE), Qiu (Pennsylvania), Morazzoni (UPF), Charles (USC), Hurtado (Chicago Booth), Nord (EUI), van der Beck (Lausanne), Monteiro (Northwestern), Gutierrez (Chicago), Senior Economist (Forecasting and Policy Modelling). Long process. They just pocketed the submission fee. Finance Job Rumors (489,506) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,795) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,021) China Job Market (103,531) Industry Rumors (40,351) Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. Quick turnaround with two okay reports. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. The editor agrees with the latter statement but adds "unless it's great. Good reports. Reasonable comments from the referee, extremely fast and efficient process. Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. Will not submit here again. However comments from the negative one are the most detailled and helpful. Paper has since been published. Didn't really get a clear sense from the negative reports why they rejected. Revision accepted for publication in one week. Although the referee comments were in detail some of them were really out of the scope. 2 rounds after which referee recommended acceptance, but editor (Chakravorty) kept the paper for 7(!) 2 months with almost no answer, although the journal claims desk rejections are within days. To avoid. 1st round 2 1/2 months. Editor said there are two reports but I only received one. Reject and resubmit. Desk rejected after 1 month. 150$ is quite a lot of money. Desk rejection came in 10 days. Empty report. is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? Good experience. It was clear the editor asked a former student to be the referee, I guess the editor does not feel positively about the paper. No comment from the editor, 1 referee report by an idiot that just filled three pages with garbage to look like a better referee; other report was better but still not nearly as smart as QJE referees. 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). After 10 months, my manuscript was still listed as "awaiting referee assignment", and no one at the journal would respond to my e-mails about the paper, so I withdrew it. Would choose again. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. Tried to block publication in the second round as well but editor overrode. One very low quality and unfriendly report. Both read, understood and gave a few comments. Editor read the paper and outlined clear (and fair) reasons for rejection. Comments were meant for another paper. Referees ok, not great. Checked my e-mail and editor rejected the paper. Totally automated review process; one referee carps even with demonstrably invalid reason and you have no right even to contact the editor. In only four sentences, ref manages to contradict himself. UCLA Economics. 2 months for a generic desk rejection with not 1 signle comment on the paper. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, excellent experience. 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). Amazing efficiency. Just that paper did not meet the bar. Tough but fair referee reports. Economics, Tenured/Tenure-track Advertiser: Various departments, New York University Shanghai Field(s) of specialization: Econometrics - Microeconomics A disappointment. Very well-run journal. Fast turnaround. Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. Fair rejection. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. Won't be doing that again Actually, it was a Reject and Resubmit because the editor liked the paper, but the reviewer was really harsh and not really understood the paper. might be a once in a career event. After 3 weeks this would have been acceptable. Editor provided no additional comments. Very useful comments from referees. Contacted them, told me they will try to send it out to reviewers. 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) All the referees understood what I did in great detail. Couldn;t get second referee so editor said he read carefully himself. Ok, experience if it wouldnt be for the 11 months. Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. I am just not part of the club. 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. The referees responded very quickly and with excellent, high quality reports. Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda. Excellent editor, balanced referees and good timing. EconJobRumors .com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is an internet forum for academic economists. Fast. No reply to my e-mail. Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud.