This journal is a scam! Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. His reports were completely crap. The editor had read the paper and provided guidance. Delays related to second reviewer. Why don't black people open carry and call it 2nd amendment rights? The submission and revision process was great and timely. Two sloppy reports, one useful. They just pocketed the submission fee. Paper eventually got accepted at higher ranked journal (!). Editor efficient, but strange experience: Two referees were very favorable, but the third referee rejected by quoting a "flaw" which was in fact correct. both reviewers rejected for different reasons, reports were overall helpful but some comments showed lack of understanding. Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. Helpful and doable things. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, Ore. Nearly 600 will lose their jobs. Incredibly insulting rejection that made it clear the referee had not read past the first 2 pages of the paper. Harsh critical comments from the editor, a useful report from the referee. Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us. Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. International Journal of Finance and Economics. Bit disappointing given the high fee. Got a rejection within a couple of days without any constructive comment. Desk rejected after 1 month. Overall an excellent experience. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. Desk rejected within two weeks. 2 straightforward reports with fair criticism. 1.5 weeks overall, Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics. Great experience. Once that work was published, he finally accepted the paper. No progress in six months although I send emails to push. Very efficient process. Great experience. Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. Very short and no relevant comments. After 10+ years in a research institution, counless submission, countless rejections, and some papers published in highly ranked journal, this was definitely my worst experience ever. To avoid. Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. Form letter from the editor. Invited to submit for a special conference issue and then the editor desk rejected. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. Kind, thoughtful, and brief editor letter. That's not true. Editor read and carefully considered the paper. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. Referee reject after more than a year. The editor read the paper carefully to make the decision. SHAME on you. Rejected for not general interest, brief comments by editor and a "finance scholar". Revisions done in another two months and sent back to referees. 2 rounds of r&r. Obviously, being turned down after a two-year long process and a very extensive revision is bad for a young author. Waited about a month for the first decision, just a few days for the (very minor) revisions. The reason for rejection was that my paper was too specific for their readers. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. Fast decision after resubmit. Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. Friendly referee with clear remarks. After ref rejection at an AEJ submitted here we followed editors suggestion and submitted to JUE. Took almost 3 months for the first reports. What takes so long? 1st round 2 1/2 months. Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. Editor should have told him to take a hike much earlier, especially when other refs suggested accept. 2 months, the article is still under internal review DPR had my manuscript for over a year, and never even got it under review. My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. At least they gave decent feedback. EM suggested transfer to a different journal (which desk rejected after 2 hours). Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Two referee reports. The final version of the proof was more elegant as a result, I am very appreciative of the reviewers and the editor. Very helpful referee report. Not recommended. Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic. Two years later still waiting for referee reports. Would never submit anything to these people again and would never recommend to anyone else either. Will submit again. The journal is likely to go up again. 2 weeks for 2 high quality ref reports. Pointed out the problems in the model and also admitted that its difficult to take care of all those problems. Editor reject due to relevance. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Total waste of time. one positive one negative, editor chose to reject. Lorentzen (BI Norway), Lieber (Chicago), Lyngse (Copenhagen), Ststad (PSE), Osun (Maryland), Majewska (Toulouse), Nord (EUI), Sverud (Copenhagen), Zillessen (Oxford), Carry (CREST), Airaudo (Carlos III), See https://www.economics.ku.dk/Calendar/seminars/, Shunsuke Tsuda (Brown), Catherine van der List (UBC), Victor Pouliquen (Oxford), Evgeny Yakovlev (NES), Andreas Ziegler (Amsterdam), Valerio Pieroni (UAB), Thomas Brzustowski (LSE), Assistant/Associate/Full Professor-Ag and Applied Economics, University of Georgia (Terry College of Business), Thereze (Princeton); Lee (Princeton); Geddes (Northwestern); Vitali (UCL); Crews (Chicago); Cai (Northwestern); Kang (Stanford GSB); Bodere (NYU), Bodere (NYU), Cai (Northwestern), Thereze (Princeton), AP of Economics at Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan Ross School of Business, Serna (Wisconsin), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Qiu (Penn), Geddes (Northwestern), Altmann (Oxford), Kleinman (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Kahou (UBC) Kim (Penn) Holz (Northwestern) Holz (Chicago Harris) Wang (Rochester) Arbour (Toronto) Lee (Chicago Harris) Wasser (Cornell) Robinson (UCSB), Development, Political Econ, Applied Micro, Lecturer (Assistant Professor), Senior Lecturer and/or Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Yes- some girl accepted offer then took another job, Aina (Zurich), Bertazzini (Oxford), pires (berkeley), oliveira (berkeley), schief (brown), uccioli (MIT), sartre (brown), Sartre (Brown), Bertazzini (Oxford), Uccioli (MIT), Skoda (Zurich), De Vera (CEMFI), Sui (Rochester), Aina (Zurich), Ghersengorin (PSE), Hancart (UCL), de Carvalho (UBC), Gavan (UPF), Milson (Oxford), Schneider (UZH), Vattuone (Warwick), Herstad (Chicago), von Carnap (IIES), Lorentzen (BI), Altmann (Oxford); See https://tinyurl.com/mryuahhm, Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford), Sung (Columbia), Lanteri (Duke), Hui (LSE), Nord (EUI), Cruces (UC3M), Williams (Yale), Marto (Penn), Trouvain (Michigan), Sturm (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton); Lanzani (MIT); Cai (Northwestern);Guerreiro (Northwestern); Nord (EUI); Ederer (TSE); Starck (Brown); Bellue (Mannheim); Diop (Oxford); Banchio (Stanford GSB); Pernoud (Stanford); Saxena (Harvard); Souchier (Stanford); Vitali (UCL); Sharma; Serna (Wisconsin), Wheeler (UC Berkeley), Bagga (UT Austin), Gutierrez (Chicago), Szerman (Princeton), Crews (Chicago), Nord (EUI), Peng (Penn), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), University of Rochester (Simon Business School), Arkhangelsky (CEMFI AP), Bai (Michigan AP), Pouliot (Chicago Harris AP), Chang (Yale), Cai (Northwestern), https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/index.php/index/research/seminars?dateRange=past&seriesId=0, Sarah Robinson (UC Santa Barbara), Justin Wiltshire (UC Berkeley), Katherine Rittenhouse (UC San Diego), Christopher Mills (Princeton), Eduardo Medina Cortina (UIUC), Arielle Bernhardt (Harvard), Jenya Kahn-Lang (Berkeley), Katherine Riitenhouse (UCSD), Gina Li (Stanford), Stephanie Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Flynn (MIT), Wang (Stanford), Lu (Stanford), Leombroni (Stanford), Seth (LBS), Singla (LBS), Ptashkina (UPF) Sileo (Georgetown) Gutirrez (Chicago) Chang (Yale) Shen (UCLA) Kohlhepp (UCLA) Cai (Northwestern) Morazzoni (UPF) Wong (Columbia) Carry (CREST) Nimier-David (CREST) Chen (Stanford GSB) Bodr (NYU) Tintelnot (Chicago AP) Beaman (Northwestern AP) Lamadon (Chicago AP) Kang (CMU AP), Risk and Insurance at Wisconsin School of Business, Rao (UCSD), Wiseman (Berkeley ARE), Rexer (Wharton), Giaccobasso (UCLA), Yucheng Yang (Princeton), Sofonias Korsaye (SFI), Matteo Leombroni (Stanford), Yes, 2/05/2023 according to EconTrack (who? Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. Overall efficient process. Going through 15 months of the reviewing process. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. Editor did not even read the paper correctly. Very quick and extremely professional. Editor decided to reject it. Worst referee report ever. It seems from this website that this in not uncommon for this journal. Editor rejected based on own concerns. 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. Submission for a special issue. Reports included four small bullet points with badly written English. low-quality referee reports. Referees mixed. Second one didn't understand the paper and said it was already written. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. The AE finally conceded that I was right and the referee was wrong - but decided to reject the paper anyway! FYI: Your editor sucks). if we go by his saying, then all finance articles are purely pointless. I wonder whether they actually read the document. I think that's fair, since I had also suspected the paper might not be a great fit. Glad that they didn't waste my time. 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. Wide disagreement among reviewers about paper, but one very helpful report. Pretty well run, can't complain. Editor rejected within less than 10 days. Editor gives no justification whatsoever. Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. Terribly disappointing experience. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. Finance Job Rumors (489,418) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,722) Micro Job Rumors (15,231) Macro Job Rumors (9,801) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,526) Industry Rumors (40,345) My impression is that the editor didn't even bother looking at the paper. Some good comments from referees, overall a good experience. Two useful reports that improved the paper. Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. One reviewer was ok after the first R&R. Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. Fast desk reject (~2 weeks) with a couple of brief, helpful comments from the editor. I assume he did not like the topic at the end. The paper was triying to test unit roots on capacity utilisation for a cross-section of countries to test some macro models; so it did stuff that even a Master's can understand. nice experience. Avoid at all costs. Not general interest enough. Desk reject in a week. Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. Editor not helpful at all. desk with a letter from editor. Very clear about what was needed for revision and the 2nd round was only minor comments.
A Chicano Poem Analysis,
Fugitive From Justice Massachusetts,
Did Patrick Warburton Have Cancer,
How To Ready Up In Fortnite On Keyboard,
Articles E