Desk rejected in two weeks. Signaling. Two decent, one useless and completely wrong. 1 report (from different referees) each round. Absolutely pathetic handling by Horner. both reviewers rejected for different reasons, reports were overall helpful but some comments showed lack of understanding. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. Got the rejection after 185 days, referees like to wait until the last couple of days to read papers! Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. Editor does not see a path to acceptance so rejection. Some comments from the editor, some are useful. Overall, I was disappointed not by the outcome per se, which is part of the game, but by the poor judgment of the referee. The editor said that enjoyed the paper very much but the contributon is not sufficiently broad for a general interest journal as JHR and fits better into a labour journal. Editor followed the second report. DK carefully read and gave constructive feedback. Paper was internally valid-(ish) but not a big enough contribution. Quite good reports and sufficiently fast process. Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one). two years is a bit too long, especially given that it will take more than a year before the paper appears in the journal. Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that! Mediocre assessment from referee with some helpful suggestions. took 7 months for 1 referee report, but the R&R was quick. Actually took nearly 15 months. Rejected by editor. Just one very low quality report. Extremely fast and thoughtful. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! They changed their system recently and the new system indicated that my paper had not been submitted so I waited 5 months for nothing. Will not b submitting here again until editorial board changes. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Fair points by referees. (Serious) are you actually worried about AI alignment? Economics Job Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. One report useless, read only the first quarter of the paper. Got two most useless reports ever. Big lie. (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. One positive and one negative. So despite I got a rejection, the experience is actually not that bad. Review process was very efficient. one positive, one negative report. Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. Editor provided detailed advice throughout the entire revision process. Milner's an emeritus, what else does he have to do? Avoid at all costs.. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. Based on the comments of one more referee with few points, he rejects. Transfer from another Elsevier journal - additional round of R&R but easily satisfied and made the paper better. Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. Editor claimed to have two reports but gave me only one. One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. The referee reports were crap (minor points without really saying anything about the research question, the methodology and the results of the paper). Editor uninterested. Stay away from JAE. No response to requests. Desk-rejected after one week without any substantial or specific comment, apart recommending to submit to a specialist journal. Overall, I was very pleased with the process. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. Jerome Adda was editor. One Referee wrote nonsense, the other was good, the editor added nonsense. A reviewer gave some thoughtful comments. The decision is motivated by acceptable reasons and suggest potential alternative journals. 3 years for a desk rejection, after sending them at least 6 emails and filing a complain with the publisher. Not clear if the paper was even read. Good experience. Quick first response with major r&r. placement@econ.ucla.edu. Quick-ish, 10 weeks. Revision took about 1 week, one of the reviewers requested additional data/info about the methods used. Filter by advisor. Reasonable referee report. Very weak report. Re-submission took a week to be finally be accepted. only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. Not because of the decision but due the letter content. Bad process. Hellwig rejected, suggested 2nd tier journal such as ET. A stronger editor could have handled the submission more efficiently also pointing out the weakness of the 2nd report. Awesome experience. But written by big shots. One very good and helpful report. Placement Officer: Professor Stefania Garetto, garettos@bu.edu, (617) 358-5887. Comments were quite simple, I resubmitted after one month, and the editor accepted the paper after 40 days. Two excellent referee reports. Extensive reviews though. Pretty average speed compared to other journals. Bad experience. Will submit again.. very fast response and useful comments from a referee. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. ~5 weeks. Constructive and helpful comments from the co-editor. Great experience - referee reports really helped improve the paper. Although my manuscript wa based on stochastic processes, editor rejected it since they were not expert in applied econometrics. Dislike for the computational results for no good reason. The other `meh'. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!! Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. very well-run journal, Very thoughtful referee reports with clear suggestions for improvement, as well as recommendations from the co-editor for better suited journals, editor read the paper and rejected with some useful comments. Mark Ramseyer. ", Bad experience: six months to get one report plus a decision letter that looked like a desk rejection (which is ok, but not after 6 months). Good experience and good editorial team. But editor is very good, One referee report with no constructive comments. Not belonging to the club implies rejection. Research Assistant (Pre-Doc) Law and Economics. Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. Good experience. Editor didn't believe our identification. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. Got reject after a year and half of work! EconJobRumors.com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is a website for academic economists. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. Good experience as far as rejections go. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. One brief report. Report very critical but useful nonetheless. UCLA Economics. 1 short and useless report, 1 incompetent (was the reason the paper was rejected) - the referee could not understand that his major criticism was trivial and was dedicated one line in introduction, 1 favorable report. One of them gave some good suggestions, but I disagree with some other points she made. Well-run journal. Should have read the comments here about how badly run this journal is. Editor decided to not even send the revised paper back to the referees. When pressed, editor said we weren't doing the same things as everyone else. The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. 2 good, one grumpy referee report. Reasonable decision. At least the fee is refunded. Never again! Received 2 very nice and 1 okay-ish report. !. Generally not 5-star experience but worth submitting there if your paper is relevant. within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Very good and helpful referee reports even though it is a rejection. Desk reject in two weeks after submitting a paper. This Rumors site allows only a maximum of 12 months from submission to decision. They pretend to look like an international journal however thay only consider studies related to Japan. Excellent editorial service from Bruno Biais. Non professionalism of editor and referee: one referee asked to modify the paper and upon seeing the changes did reject saying that I should have done the way it was done in the first place. Only have issues with one of the reviewers. From the comments it could have been an R&R, at least the referee and editor comments were helpful and will help to improve the paper, Though it is rejcted, I want to express my thankness to the refreee, who provdes a exremly high quality report. 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. 3 constructive and useful reports. Excellent comments from MN, good experience for a desk rejection. Highly recommended. Two excellent (and supportive) referee reports. 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. Several rounds of mildly encouraging R&R reports, then paper was lost. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. Have emailed for status to no avail. Reject because aparently would not fit in their journal. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a papers contribution. First response in less than 3 months. Editor picked reasonable comments, asked to take into account suggestions, accepted the paper after the referees agreed that what I did is reasonable. Can't really complain about the speed, North American Journal of Economics and Finance. Desk rejected after 3 days. Very long wait. First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. Good comments, made the paper better. One ref gave R&R; the other two were rejections for not being of sufficient interest for AEJM. A bit slow, but good comments by the referee. One good referee report, one referee who had no idea. 14 days to desk reject, worthless generic email that said nothing on why it was rejected, merely that they "get lots of papers. Receive desk rejection in 24 hours, editor read the paper and suggested to top field journal. Desk reject after 3 days. Fast process, but very poor reviewer report. Checked status online after a month to see the outcome. Very good reports, very effective handling of the editor. We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. These advices do make the paper better. I don't know what to add. so,? Only one semi-informative report. The discussant in the shitty conf gives better comments. Click here for more information. Referee's comment was useful but contained too many extensions. The editor had good words about the paper but one ref didn't like it, so he rejected it. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. rejected after 2 rounds of revisions. Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. One ref in favor, one against. Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. Desk rejected in 6 hours. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. The most underutilized channel is Paid Search. Desk rejected by Katz within 24 hours. Andrew Foster took a full month for a desk without a comment. Fast. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. I recommend. Pretty bad experience. However, everything was fixed, and overall I am happy. Fast. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. Single ref report had three very minor questions. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. Professional editor. Highly recommended. No response for seven and a half months. Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. Despite perceptions they do desk reject. The shitty one referred to multiple papers in very low ranked journals authored by the same set of authors. Bad Experience. Result not general enough for ECMA. Worse experience ever. Desk rejected in two hours with a polite email that basically said "your methodology is wrong and your question is wrong." He/she also asked unrelated information such as why the market offer two similar contracts, which is not the scope of the study. I waited fora long time only to be rejected with a response NOT A GOOD FIT. Two reports. Referees did not show good knowledge of the subject. One report was very useful. Not recommended. 2 very short reports after waiting 11 months and paying a crazy submission fee. Nice reports that improve the quality and readability of the paper. Decent referee reports. It seems that the last guy didn't read the paper carefully and I wonder how it could take 4month to write such a poor report. "Paper not of general interest, try sending to a field journal". They all got published in other journals and a book.