Reasonably good experience; referee not overly experienced with topic. One useless referee report claiming that we did not make robustness checks in a journal of 2000 letters! not broad enough, it seems that JHR considers themselves as a general interest journal. Editor followed the second report. Great experience, one of the referees truly improved the paper substantially. 6 months for a referee report written by a plain imbecile who could not even derive Proposition 1. But no referee reports were supplied to me. Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). Search by name. Waited for almost a year and sent a couple of emails to the editor; promised us a response in two weeks. Referee report useless. Complete waste of 10 months and $200. Good experience. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. Finance Job Rumors (489,491) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,777) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,013) China Job Market (103,528) Industry Rumors (40,348) Very quick response. One was more helpful than the other. Would try again. one positive one negative, editor chose to reject. Fast process. Seemed not to like the idea of the paper without actually reading it. Editor accepted it. Saying that the topic is not general enough. Desk reject with what appeared to be constructive comments but on closer inspection were worthless (points already made in the paper). To get rejected in a good journal, that is ok since it is part of the business but waiting 10 moths for refereee reports of that quality was a really bad deal. Comments like "I do not understand the findings of this study" show that the journal is not what it used to be. Amazing experience. Very short and no relevant comments. Fair experience. Excellent handling. Same referee as for a previous submission to a high-ranked journal. Submitted in 2012. Both reports very helpful, AE comments showed that he did not understand the paper. I'll definetly will submit again. Editor identity unknown. Main editor Wilson takes care of it. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. Desk rejected by Katz within 24 hours. No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. Very bad experience. Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. Disappointing experience. Would send here again. Basically useless, a waste of time. Good experience! Waste of money. FYI: Your editor sucks). Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. Editor was a bit harsh. One stern but very helpful referee report (five pages, competent and extremely detailed) in two weeks. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. 2 months for a generic desk rejection with not 1 signle comment on the paper. Desk rejected thoughtelessly with curious comment paper read more like a book, 8 month desk reject with no reports--JPE is dead to me, desk rejected in a bit over a week, not clear who handled the paper. Waste of the submission fee. Reason given: "not general enough." Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help. Very different than my past experience. Such along time frame for such a poor assessment of the paper. The editor (Ravikumar) gave me an R&R with reasonable requirements. He suspects he could not understand a yota. The paragraph/comment not constructive. The comment by the editor in charge was helpful. 1 report, minor issues, rejected. We got referee rejection in 2.5 months: 2 referees, one favours RR, other rejects. Highly recommended. I am happy with the outcome. Secodn editor waited almost 6 weeks after receiving the referee reports. 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. Desk/ref rejected. Efficient. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. Very efficient, good reports. Will submit again.. Was contacted again after another two years promising that my paper was to be considered, and say yes please do. Not too bad an experience. The other did not understand the basic identification strategy in the paper. Desk rejected within 7 days. The other `meh'. Very short to the point referee report. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. After this thrid email, the paper moves up and it takes 11 weeks to get referee rejection (quality fo the two reports: poor, they wont improve my paper). Deputy Editor rejected the paper with insufficient contribution and a comment that doesn't make sense. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. A lot to revise, but editor gave only 2 months. Hostile report stating "I do not belive your assumptions", editor ignored it. Took 3 month for a simple "out of scope" notification!! We were asked to collect additional data for our existing experimental treatments to increase our statistical power. Thank goodness that there are more journals in health economics started. Editor was a little bit lazy as it took him two months after receiving the ref report to answer. I am an assistant professor at Universit de Montral. 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. Even though my paper was rejected, they will be useful to improve the paper prior to resubmission to another journal. It took them 10 months to say anything and at the end even though the referees asked for revisions and were positive the editor rejected the paper. awful experience. One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. One very good review, two quite missed points. (Shouldn't these cases be desk-rejected instead of being rejected after 6 months?). Would try again in the future. Shleifer was the editor. Reasonable. Under one month for one very brief report saying not good enough for the journal and a completely indecipherable AE report. Don't think they even bothered reading the first page. He made the most stupid argument to reject the paper. 1 extremely helpful report and 2 so so ones. 2-pages report, few suggestions. Overall, great experience. Fair rejection. Fast. Do not submit to this journal. Very fast; useful, reasonably positive report despite rejection. Tone of the reports harsher than at better journals. Accepted 3 days after resub even though the initial decision was RR with 'major revisions'. The editor's comments show that he is totally uninformed about the literature. Editor rejected on the basis of being too narrow. It took 4 months to get the reviews, but the reviews were excellent. Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). Journal: Utilities Policy (was not included as a journal to chose). Very good referee report. Good experience. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. An incompetent referee and an editor that could not care less of how slow the process was: a lethal combo, Quick decision, with some useful comments in the reports. First decision in 2 months. I am not sure the referee knows the topic area well enough. Pulled a weak R&R. https://wpcarey.asu.edu/economics-degrees/research-seminars-workshops, Hoy (World Bank), Cox (Yale), Toppeta (UCL), Prettnar (UCSB), Kang (Stony Brook), Abdulhadi (OSU), Sun (Penn State), Seyler (Laval), Neal (UNSW), Lin (UCLA), Huang (NYU), Zhang (Princeton), Beltekian (Nottingham), Jin (BU & CMU), Kumagai (Brown), Zhou (Chicago Postdoc), Chen (LISER & Tilburg), https://rse.anu.edu.au/seminars-events/all-seminars, Senior Economist or FSS Senior Analyst (2022-2023 PhD Job Market), Behavioral Economics, Experimental Economics, Assistant Professor, Business and Public Policy, Kapon (Princeton postdoc), Moscona (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Nord (EUI), Vergara (Berkeley), Wang (EUI), Ashtari (UCL), Sung (Columbia), Conwell (Yale), Carry (ENSAE), Song (USC), Thereze (Princeton), Banchio (Stanford GSB), Vitali (UCL), Wong (Columbia), Kang (Stanford GSB), Ba (UPenn), Durandard (Northwestern), Department of Social and Political Sciences, Zenobia T. Chan (Princeton), Xiaoyue Shan (Zurich), Germain Gauthier (CREST), Massimo Pulejo (NYU), Joan Martnez (Berkeley), Enrico Miglino (UCL), Assistant Professor of the Practice in Economics, Borghesan (Penn) Wagner (Harvard) Acquatella (Harvard) Vitali (UCL) Zahra Diop (Oxford) Bernhardt (Harvard), Boston University, Pardee School of Global Studies, Assistant Professor of International Economic Policy, Yeji Sung (Columbia), Joao Guerreiro(Northwestern), Seck (Harvard), Borusyak (UCL), Rexer (Wharton), College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University, Castro de Britto (Bocconi), Alfonsi (Berkeley), Miano (Harvard), Hazard (PSE), Uccioli (MIT), Brandimarti (Geneva), Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Mattia (Chicago), Applied Microeconomics, Business Economics, Hampole (Kellogg), Kwon (HBS), Morazzoni (UPF), Puri (MIT), Vasudevan (Yale), Wang (Stanford GSB), Pernoud (Stanford), Vats (Booth), Otero (UC Berkeley, hes accepted the Columbia GSB offer), Commonwealth University of Pennsylvania - Bloomsburg, Cong @Cornell is a free rider of people's research, Szerman(Princeton), Kohlhepp(UCLA), Contractor(Yale), Pauline Carry (CREST), Nimier-David (CREST), Lukas Nord (EUI), Philipp Wangner (TSE), Anna Vitali (UCL), Lucas Conwell (Yale University), Florencia Airaudo (Carlos III), Fernando Cirelli (NYU), Nils Lehr (Boston Univesrity), Sara Casella (University of Pennsylvania), Yehi Sung (Columbia University), Shihan Shen (UCLA), Federico Puglisi (Northwestern University), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Juan Manuel Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton University), Martin Souchier (Stanford), Benny Kleinman (Princeton Univerisity), Miano (Harvard), Ramazzotti (LSE), Miglino (UCL), Petracchi (Brown), Augias (Sciences Po), Uccioli (MIT), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Vattuone (Warwick), Yang (ANU), Mantovani (UPF), Ashtari Tafti (UCL), Colombo (Mannheim), Vocke (Innsbruck) (see here: shorturl.at/azHN1), Thereze (Princeton) Miller (Wharton) Matcham (LSE) van der Beck (EPFL) Casella (UPenn) Wang (Stanford GSB) Taburet (LSE) Pernoud (Stanford) Mittal (Columbia) Hampole (Kellogg). submitted 4 years ago, got a response after nearly 2, resubmitted, now waiting more than a year for a result, editor not responsive to queries about the status, look elsewhere before soubmitting in the Economic Modelling, terrible experience, I am thinking about withdrawing. Boo! One very helpful referee report, 2 not so helpful. I read on EJMR how clubby and unfortunately British this journal is, but never expected it to be true. One good referee report, one referee who had no idea. What a joke! All editors have lined up to publish their own papers (just see the forthcoming papers, 3 (three!!) Will probably not be using this journal again. Good reports. One referee was amazing, the other one added no value. Three high quality referee reports. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! after more than 3 months still "with editor". In all the rejection was fair. Finance Job Rumors (489,470) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,758) Micro Job Rumors (15,233) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,523) Industry Rumors (40,348) Home. The editor's comments were no less helpful and extensive as referees' reports. 1 report ok, the other one awful, Referee clearly did not understand the paper. Editor and refs liked the topic but not the empirical strategy. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. Terrible single line report from editor (after 16 months of waiting). they should have desk rejected, AE told me: you should not be surprised that IER typically does not appreciate this kind of work.. they wasted my time. game (can anyone confirm this?)? Editor says, "your paper poses only a very marginal contribution to the literature in theoretical economics. The editor-in-chief writes, "Although the question you address and your results are interesting, in my view the paper is a poor fit for GEB's readership..". Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. The status are always the same "under review". Very helpful comment. In anyway, you need to be very careful when responding with him, he can easily upset you with a rejection. The peer review process was fast. Great experience. Will never submit there again. overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness. However, everything was fixed, and overall I am happy. 2 fairly helpful reports. A five pages fantasy report written by a phd-student who did not read the paper. one positive, one negative report. Editor was super helpful. Polite, even quite positive reports. After waiting for more than 5 months I got 0 Referee reports and a rejection based on very loose comments. AE editor rejects a paper that passed the desk at much better journals. Focus too narrow for a general interest journal. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so." One referee, although clearly in favour of publication, asked a good deal of revisions and it took us 4 motnhs to respond so most of the delay may have been our fault. We will not be making any further offers this year. Wonderful experience overall. This guy really needs to not be a referee if he can not do a thorough job in actually reading paper. Rubbish report ! Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. Generic letter saying the paper was not fit to general interest journal. took the money. quality reviewers. It took almost two month for a desk reject. 2nd bad experience for me with this journal. The new editor rejected the paper 2 days after submitted it. Simply put, the reviewer does not believe in my results (simulations from calibrated macroeconomic model). Two referee reports, one engaged and constructive, the other written in incredibly poor English that took issue with some phrases I used. Reviews were fair. Referee 1 happy with resubmission (no further comments), referee 2 suggested rejection or major rewriting. Good comments from the referee. Terribly run journal. Recommended second tier general interest journals. Bad experience. Worst experience so far. Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. Editors only pick those with close network. One obviously senior who doesn't care, openly says didn't read some parts. The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. The other one, who wanted extra revises, was a bit of stupid. Title: Researcher Location: COLOMBIA JEL Classifications:. Very well-run journal. Two rounds of R&R. Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. One week to accept. Otherwise, efficient process, decent reports. Good experience, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. Crawford rejects although refs and editor recommends revision. Pok Sang Lam rejected with few comments. This decision is not in any sense a negative comment on the quality of the paper. 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. Accepted 4 days after resub. Very complementary and helpful reviews. Submitted a really cool COVID-19 theory and emperical paper. So-so experience. One good referee report. editing team is real class act. In general, it is difficult to follow the derivations due to a lack of intuitive explanations. Good handling by the editor (Reis). Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. Our claims were supported. Offers and negotiating. Waste of time. 2 poor quality reports after 8 months of being under review. Timely, informed, and critical. Editor is a little slow. The editor read the paper and provided useful advice on how to improve it. Editor mentioned the wrong econometric model in email making it clear it was not read. Nice when they actually read the paper. Good referee reports about key aspects of the research question framing and relevance. One referee report was super helpful. Overall great experience. Perhaps the worst experience ever. First round took 2 months. An uprising journal so I recommend people to publish here. ), Vienna University of Economics and Business, Ceccarelli (Zurich/Maastricht), Pitkjrvi (Aalto), Assistant Professor in Labor, Migration, and Racial Capitalism, Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario), Gallant (Toronto), Sullivan (Yale), Cui (UPenn), Choi (Wisconsin-Madison), Kahou (UBC), Hentall-MacCuish (UCL), Babalievsky (minnesota), Moszkowski (Harvard), Hong (Wisconsin-Madison), Pan (UT Austin), McCrary (UPenn), Gutierrez (University of Chicago), Kwon (Cornell), Zillessen (Oxford), Ba (UPenn), Assistant, Advanced Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor of Economics, E0 -- General F3 -- International Finance F4 -- Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Fin. Heckman handled paper. One very positive and helpful report, one negative report. Useful letter from the editor. quick turnaround and helpful referee report. professional. A couple nice comments from Shleifer after two days. Not being up to claimed "high-speed dissemination" standards. I must say second reviewer report was 1 and a half line and in my view it is the most unscientific report I have ever seen. Funny thing is Editor endorsed reviewer's response. One positive and two negative reports. Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. Ever. They keep the submission fees, very efficient cash cow! After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. Unfortunately, this is my usual experience with EER. This journal still has the word economics in its tile, please stop asking clueless marketing types to referee! Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one). Ok and efficient process - was told at one point that Chirs Pissarides had to approve acceptance our paper because of the subject matter, which seemed implausible. Accepted after 3 R&R. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. Really good advice from journal editor and 2 good reports. We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. Desk rejection would be normal, but the journal has changed dramatically the orientation towards family firms. The reason given was something along the lines of well we can't read everything. Fair and quick process. Good experience as far as rejections go. Job Market Paper: Sorting in the Marriage Market: The Role of Inequality and its Impact on Intergenerational Mobility. A Doctorate level degree in Economics or related fields, or expect to receive it in 2023 with strong background in empirical analysis and policy-focused research. Horner is a disaster! BTW if one of the referee goes for RR, I would have to wait for a third referee report (lucky me?). One ref suggested I send it to JPE before trying places like EJ or ReStat. fast process; only one report who was mainly referencing a single paper (SSRN, not published, single author); no useful feedback, disappointing experience. Finally withdraw. Short unhelpful referee reports which ask to cite referees. Overall great experience. Editor recommended field journal submission. Yes, he can ask for odd things. Editor admitted haven't read the paper. KS super smart and constructive feedback. Took 7 months to give 1 referee report with just 5 lines. One good report and the other mediocre. Editor was Barro. JEDC is well run. Constructive and very detailed referee comments improved the paper. 5 days. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. Fair decision and process, 2 mildly positive reviews, editor shot it down. Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. took 7 months for 1 referee report, but the R&R was quick. Professional co-editor and referee. Very quick. Rejected and no reason given. Excellent Experience. Most efficient experience with journals ever! In the end the paper got much improved. However, once the paper was assigned to referees, the speed was normal. Paper rejected by editor. Long process. Will not consider it again. Wasted months of work. Reviewers did not understand anything. Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. Very good referee reports. After waiting for 6 months, I sent a polite email to the editor asking if the paper fell through the cracks. Fast turnaround. The paper was accepted after I incorporated all suggestions in R&R. 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) Sadly, no mention of why paper was rejected (only minor issues raised). After two rounds all the referee agreed to publish the paper. Given all that has happened with JPE in recent years, don't think I will waste my time and money with them again. Received 3 high-quality referee reports within 4 months. Referees asked for useless extensions and took more than six months in each round. The paper was accepted few days after the revised version has been submitted. Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). Got a slow desk rejection from LB telling me/us to cite someone I cited in the intro. He recommended me to send it to a more specialized field journal. Editor agreed to R&R and suggested major changes but then didn't like the resulting paper. Very happy with the process, definetly a favorite for future. Not a good experience. Took 4 months to report that the article was not a good fit and return without reports. Health economics, Applied . I got two very different referee reports, one was very critical but absolutely low quality. Do you really understand American history? I waited six weeks for an inaccurate, one paragraph referee report? writing? Assistant Professor of Economics Columbia University Visiting Research Associate (2022-23) BFI at the University of Chicago Research Network Affiliate CESifo Network Links: Cognition and Decision Lab DRIPs Curriculum Vitae Google Scholar Contact: ha2475@columbia.edu . That was also a very fast and good experience, though not the outcome I had hoped. Mediocre assessment from referee with some helpful suggestions. Secondary: Applied Macroeconomics and International Economics. 6 months after that paper online. Cantillon is not a good editor. Overall, bad experience. They pocketed the submission fee, though! Two useful reports and one garbage report thrashing the paper. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. Not only is it accepted, but it also becomes a much better paper now. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. Referee clearly didn't read the paper carefully. One told me I should have use the methodology introduced by XPTO et al, which was the one I used and cited Only worthy comment was the editors who stated (and rightly so) that though our model statistically improved forecasts. Editor (Collins) might read the paper, but did not say much. Very quick response. Two referees made great reviews and very detailed comments. 3 years for a desk rejection, after sending them at least 6 emails and filing a complain with the publisher. Quick response. Very pleasant experience. Mentioned but did not provide reports, just asked for a more policy oriented conclusion, unresponsive to emails. Conley is a tremendous editor. desk reject by kahn in 48 hours. The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it.