Other referee didn't have a clue. It took more than 2 months for desk reject. Very efficient. R&R in two months. totally useless editor. Explains longish time to first review. Took 4 months to report that the article was not a good fit and return without reports. Bad experience waiting for and ultimately receiving two relatively useless reviews for a comment/note (paper < 10 pages including title/abstract page, references, and tables). Editor rejected on the basis of being too narrow. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. While harping on the issue, provided no insights as to how one can go about it. Fast. Just that paper did not meet the bar. 10 days for desk reject. Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. Suggested some other journals. Helpful and fair referee reports. It ended up being published in a higher ranked journal. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. Used reports from AER. One was thoughtful report, pointed to at least one direction we can improve. High quality, detailed ref. In the opinion of the Editorial Board, this paper does not appear to be a good match (the othee papers are good match) for the International Journal of Industrial Organization and it is unlikely that this paper will ultimately be published in the IJIO. It is a pity it was rejected, but I appreciate the quick response. great experience. Pretty good experience. No comments from the unknown handling editor. is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? 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. 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. Terribly disappointing experience. Definetely the referees liked the idea and wanted to improve paper's quality not to argue with its contribution. Actually took nearly 15 months. 18 days, no indication that either adstract or paper was read. Five weeks, submission to rejection. Editor decided based on 1 report. If the editor tought the paper did not fit the scope of the journal, he should have rejected it at the very beginning of the process, without engaging in a peer-review. One single bad report. The literature review was complete! Very good experience. Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal. Fast turn around with great referee reports that significantly improved the paper. Good report with relevant comments which will be useful if publication of this study is pursued further. The editor was quick and helpful. 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. Kneller is a very good editor, the experience has been very good. Very quick response. Recommended second tier general interest journals. Really involved editor and a referee who suggested changes that, while complex, were easy to deal with. Single ref report had three very minor questions. Quick handling, competent (positive) reports. Good experience. Very helpful referee report. The referees loved it, very positive comments. One extremely hostile report written by someone who is clearly trying to delay my results from coming out and another one paragraph report recommending minor revisions. Reports were not fair but at least fast response. Solid referee report and very quick response. Great experience! That is not cool. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. Kohlhase). They pretend to look like an international journal however thay only consider studies related to Japan. Two referee reports, one engaged and constructive, the other written in incredibly poor English that took issue with some phrases I used. One referee gave very constructive comments, but referenced three papers by same person (I'm guess that's who referee was). Two referees in the first round, good comments. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. Results not important enough to a broad audience. Report was fair and helpful and editor's letter was kind. 14 days. Rather uninformative feedback: feeling that it is not suitable for publication and unlikely to be favorably reviewed. Dislike for the computational results for no good reason. Pretty well run, can't complain. The three reviewers really went through the proof, I was a little impressed by their comments. Suggested changes and several other outlets. The editor emailed me after 6 days and said he read and liked the paper. Saying that the topic is not general enough. Result are standard and no enough novelty! it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. For a short paper, it took quite a longtime for deskreject without a single sentence relating to the paper. very thorough referee report, comments were mostly related to theoretical motivation, paper was submitted without much change to JFE and eventually accepted there. In general, efficient journal, 2 months, 2 good reports & 1 trash report, fair outcome and ok process. $65 down the drain! The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. Very useful suggestions by the editor who read the paper carefully. 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. We thought we'd receive useful reports even if we got rejected, but this turned out to be a total waste of time. Good comments from the editor. 2 months for a generic desk rejection with not 1 signle comment on the paper. happy for a quick decision. Depressing experience. One short and one longer report. Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. Two reports of middling quality. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Editor read the paper and outlined clear and fair reasons for rejection. One rubbish review from a referee who had no idea what the paper was about. Quick desk rejection from the Editor (about a week). Full of informative/wrong comments. More than 16 weeks!! Editor mentioned delay is mainly the result of needing to get a second editorial assessment which suggested this paper's arguments are more likely to find a responsive audience in a different journal. Bad experience. Reasonable comments from the referee, extremely fast and efficient process. The Graduate School of Business at Columbia University is seeking to hire one or more tenure-track faculty members in the area of economics, including those in macroeconomics, open economy macroeconomics, or macroeconomic aspects of international trade, applied microeconomics, organizational economics, industrial organization, behavioral . Search by field of study. (It doesn't seem like a club journal. Also one referee was clueless and did not read the paper. Pointed out the problems in the model and also admitted that its difficult to take care of all those problems. Only one referee report. Can't complain with the decision and the entire process. so,? Website | CV One referee clearly did not read the paper, while the other one did not understand the meaning of control variables. Desk rejected within two weeks. The reviewer recommended accept after seeing the revision. On its face, the referee provided a good report, but once I dug into the details, it was clear he didn't understand my identification strategy. 3 weeks to desk reject. Very helpful reports. One synthetic but straight to the point referee report, asking for very specific and reasonable corrections to the paper. Super standard rejection letter from Olivier Coibion, no advice whatsoever Two months to a desk reject, with zero information from the editor's response. Fast editors. Fairly helpful referee report. useless reports. desk reject by kahn in 48 hours. 2nd very short and useless, referee probably spent 10 mins on it. Some conflicting recomms that editor didn't address. He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. the ?author? There was no mistake. Referee reports were of high quality. A bit slow but overall a good experience. Desk reject in a few hours with very impersonal email. Editor was kind and offered some useful remarks. Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. 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 weak reports. Okay referee reports. Useful and encouraging comments from referees, who appeared very interested in improving the paper and offering helpful suggestions to do so. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. They have not released it, sorry. Fantastic journal. Editor's letter mentioned a 2-1 split in favor of rejection, so she rejected. Relatively high submission fee. Very bad experience. Fair process. It just decided not to believe the empirical analysis. Professional editor. Decent reports, rejecting for fair reasons. Use widely accepted methods. After waiting for more than 5 months I got 0 Referee reports and a rejection based on very loose comments. Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. 2 was more critical. Couldn;t get second referee so editor said he read carefully himself. Editor gave a two sentence summary the paper, mentioned two additional recent articles from their journal that might be useful, and suggested an alternative journal. Referee makes a factually inaccurate claim about previous research, and misinterprets interaction terms. took 5 months. 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. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Too narrow-minded editor. Editor decided to not even send the revised paper back to the referees. cooperative? There was supposed to be a third referee report that was not received, which may have been the reason for the time between submission to decision. Editor provided some friendly comments. 2 months to R&R, revisions accepted by editor about a week after re-submission. Apparently is unaware of large literature in multiple fields to which topic pertains. Desk rejected in less than one month. Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA)Berkeley - USA, Director of Economics and Data One of the referees helped me structure the paper nicely. Editor referred to a report by a reviewer received by phone. Desk reject within 5 days. The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress. The referee seemed to be familiar with the broad topic of the special issue, but not with the specific subject the paper dealt with (e.g. One good quality report suggesting minor revisions after 1 month. Very helpful referee report. Fast and Efficient Journal. 2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. We will not be making any further offers this year. Good experience overall, only took 2 weeks, two short reports, one very useful. Fair referee reports, ref. After 7 months at the journal, I get one extremely low quality referee report. 2nd round interview requests recently sent out which will result in second round of flyouts), Ederer (Toulouse), Beyhum (CREST/ENSAI), Wiseman (Berkeley), Zillessen (Oxford), Seibel (Zurich), De Vera (CEMFI), Laffitte (ULB), Leibniz-Zentrum fr Europische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH Mannheim, Lin William Cong @Cornell sexual harassment, Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Clare Balboni (MIT) Yong Cai (Northwestern), Joel Flynn (MIT), Benny Kleinman (Princeton), Joan Martinez (UC Berkeley), Anh Nguyen (MIT), Agathe Pernoud (Stanford), Roman Rivera (Columbia), Michael Rubens (UCLA), Regina Seibel (Zurich), Natalia Serna (Wisconsin), Christiane Szerman (Princeton), Milena Wittwer (Boston), Hannah Zillessen (Oxford), Althoff (Princeton), Balboni (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Szerman (Princeton), Serna (Wisconsin), Luxembourg Institue of Socio-Economic Research, Assistant Professor in Computational Social Science, Eisfeld (Toulouse), Tiew (Harvard), Woo (Rochester), Sharma (NDS), Sullivan (Yale), Ramos (Harvard), Majewska (Toulouse), Ebrahimi (UBC), Lesellier (Toulouse), Camara (Northwestern), Alba (Toronto), Conlon (Harvard), Bernhardt (Harvard), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), National University of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Aina(Zurich) Ba (UPenn) Bernhardt (Harvard) Cai (Northwestern) Carry(CREST) Chang (Yale) Flynn(MIT) Geddes (Northwestern) Moszkowski (Harvard) Nguyen(MIT) Pernoud(Stanford) Puri(MIT) Rivera(Columbia) Saxena (Harvard) Schuh(Stanford) Souchier(Stanford) Sung (Columbia) Tiew (Harvard) Vitali(UCL) Wiseman (Berkeley), Wong (Columbia), Teng (LUISS), Dimitri Pugachev (INSEAD), Andrey Kurbatov (INSEAD), Felix Wilke (SSE), Uettwiller (Imperial), Sam Piotrowski (Connecticut), Chuck Fang (Wharton), Thomas Grunthaler (Munster), Celine Fei (UNC), Denis Monakov (UCLA), Weiting Hu (Washignton-St. Louis), Valentin Schubert (SSE), Kurbatov, Wilke - declined, Schubert - declined, Piotrowski, Pugachev, Grunthaler - declined, Monakov, Piotrowski (Connecticut), Pugachev (INSEAD), Monakov (UCLA), Kurbatov (INSEAD), Nguyen (MIT), Flynn (MIT), Singh (MIT), Sullivan (Yale), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Sharma (MIT), Qiu (UPenn), Lanzani (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Vergara (UC Berkeley), Wiseman (UC Berkeley), Kroft (Toronto, AP) Kaur (Berkeley AP) Deshpande (Chicago AP) Ryan (Yale AP), Minni (LSE), Otero (UC Berkeley), Pernoud (Stanford), Crews (Chicago), Barone (UCLA), Mills (Princenton), Cai (NW), Jou (UCLA), Rittenhouse (UCSD) Mugnier (CREST) Acquatella (Harvard) Rivera (Columbia) D'Adamo (UCL) Zahra Diop (Oxford), Barone (UCLA), Mills (Princeton), Pellegrina (NYUAD AP), Mugnier (CREST), Beyhum (CREST AP), Deopa (AMSE), Kuang (Cornell), Gordon (Yale), Wang (EUI), Benmir (LSE & Paris Dauphine), Dahis (PUC-Rio AP), Lieber (Chicago), Tebbe (IIES), Ospital (UCLA), DAdamo (UCL), Peking University, Guanghua School of Management, Shen (UCLA), Qiu (Penn), Yang (Princeton), Assistant Professor in Environmental and Resource Economics, Flynn (MIT), Chen (Stanford GSB), Bleemer (Yale), Singh (MIT), Lanzani (MIT), Nguyen (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Sandomirsiy (Caltech), Wang (Stanford GSB), Carry (CREST), Conlon (Harvard), Vergara (Berkeley), Moscona (MIT), Souchier (Stanford), Bleemer (Yale), Carry (CREST), Chen (Stanford GSB), Seck (Harvard), Singh (MIT), Bernhard Dalheimer (Trade & Macroeconomics); Laura Montenovo (State & Local Finance); Guy Tchuente (Quantitative Methods in Spatial Analysis), Hannon (Cambridge), Austin (Oxford Said), Altmann (Oxford), Wangner (TSE), Rudov (Princeton), Uettwiller (Imperial), Leroutier (SSE), de Sousa (UC3M), Pieroni (UAB), Pugachev (INSEAD), Ashtari (UCL), Kim (UCSD), Casella (UPenn), Raja (LSE), Lieber (Chicago), Yang (Duke); see https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sef/events/seminars/, Assistant Professor of Economic Analysis and Policy, Moszkowski (Harvard), Wheeler (Berkeley), Cui (Wharton), Kytomaa (University of Texas at Austin), Sullivan (Yale), Seibel (Zurich), Fleitas (Leuven), Barnes (Berkeley), Lehr (Boston University) https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/AcademicAreas/Seminars, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Wiseman (UC Berkeley), Ferey (LMU), Morazzoni (UPF), Acquatella (Harvard/BU), Diop (Oxford), Eisfeld (TSE), Khalifa (AMSE), Gauthier (CREST), Bodere (NYU), Decker (Zurich), Wang (EUI), Wangner (TSE), Garg (Columbia), Miglino (UCL), Gordon (Yale), Michael Gilraine (NYU), Victor Aguiar (Western), International, public, labor, IO, development, Prasanthi Ramakrishnan (WUSTL), 02/15/2023, Delgado-Vega (UC3M), Castillo Quintana (NYU), Bergeron (USC AP), Slough (NYU, AP), Seck (Harvard), Teso (Northwestern, AP), Bernhardt (Harvard), No offer has been made as of March 3rd, your information is wrong, Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Pauline Carry (CREST), Benny Kleinman (Princeton), Kwok-Hao Lee (Princeton), Jacob Moscona (Harvard/MIT), Sagar Saxena (Harvard), Puri (MIT), Conlon (Harvard), Kleinman (Princeton), Bilal (Harvard AP), Seck (Harvard), Nguyen (MIT), Moscona (MIT), Crews (UChicago), Kleinman (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Moscona (MIT), Grindaker (BI Oslo), Terracciano (SFI), Huebner (UCLA), Taburet (LSE), Azzalini (IIES), Chen (SFI), Morazzoni (UPF), Gopalakrishna (EPFL), Charles (USC Marshall), Monteiro (Kellogg), ; see https://tinyurl.com/4rktwnf6, Minni (LSE), Guige (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Merilainen (ITAM), Carry (CREST), Khalifa (AMSE), Seibel (Zurich), Heath Milsom (Oxford), Carry (CREST); Wiseman (Berkeley); Casella (UPenn); Wu (Rochester); Silliman (Harvard); Morazzoni (UPF); Khalifa (AMSE); Babalievsky (Minnesota); Jha (UBC); Qiu (UPenn). Helpful reports and suggestions by the editor. 1 helpful report. Desk rejected in one day. "The empirical econometric novelty of the paper is not substantial enough ", Desk rejection within five days / Poor allocation of coordinating editor (microeconometrician for a time series paper), Quick desk rejection after manuscript ID was assigned. Woman completes quintessentially English mission to eat 244 scones across U.K. One is very productive while the other is suck. The comments from the editor are also disappointing: his main suggestion is to send our 7,500 words paper to economics letters.

Android 12 Google Search Bar, Church Of The Highlands Chris Hodges, Mugshots Bar Peoria, Il, Delta Airlines St Louis Phone Number, Native American Prayer For Peace, Articles E