Two referee reports very useful, pointing to the same concerns, one of them quite positive and friendly, providing numerous pathways to pursue in the future. 2 weeks for desk reject. The rejection was fair but the referee report uninformative and boilerplate. quick process, helpful reports and editor comments, Kind reject from the editor after a week, providing reasons why the paper was rejected, 6 months to receive 2 reports. Not a great experience! First report provided helpful insights, second - only half page of general comments. Notice that I submitted there on the basis of the widely publicized (EEA Gothenburg) fastness of this journal. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. Decent referee reports, good turnaround time. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. Suggest field journal. We will not be making any further offers this year. The IJIO has a rapid review process. Two excellent referee reports. Second round 4 months before acceptance. But then again it was my fault, I didn't run an experiment! While the ref rejection runied my day, I must conclude that the process was very efficient and the editors/refs earned every penny of the submission fee based on the feedback I received. Desk rejected by editor, who said that editor in chief rejects ~40% and he rejects about the same. No indication that the co-editor read the paper. Very very good comments, referee was clearly very knowledgeable. Fair decision. The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. Minor changes, though. Update to previous pending post. Also revisions handled quite efficiently! Invited to submit for a special conference issue and then the editor desk rejected. The Editor Requate cannot distinguish between partial and general equilibrium. No specific comment from the editor. A serious fraud: Fake JF and RFS conditional acceptances, "Leftover women" problem hits US dating market, New "Family Ruptures" AER / NBER is rip-off of obscure paper, Schiraldi (LSE) and Seiler (Stanford) false coauthors of AER publication, Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School, Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO). Referee report was ready within a month after submission. After more than 3 months of waiting, the paper was rejected with a one-sentence referee report. One very good referee report (I feel he has pubs in AER, JPE) and one useless report (he doesn't know anything about business economics). Much faster than last experience with the journal, same result. Response was less than two months from submission -- super quick. Not to say, the shortcoming is an accepted norm till one finds a better way. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. Who are these people?? AE recommended other journals. They keep the submission fees, very efficient cash cow! Garbage. 14 days. Avoid at all costs.. Sadly, no mention of why paper was rejected (only minor issues raised). The other without serious suggestions. Editorial board apparently liked the paper, but found it not sufficiently related to population economics. Recommended field journal, and it was in fact eventually published in the top field journal. A year after submission without result? (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint). Worst experience ever. It's going to be most accurate for economics, political science, public policy & other professional schools. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. My first submission in AE and it is the best experience ever. One useful referee report and one that was not. Galor and the referees felt the contribution wasn't substantial enough. One very useful report from a critical referee, and one mediocre. Rejection after R&R. Good experience. journal has a reputation for being out of the mainstream of econ. Very quick response from Larry Katz. One guy who had no clue, the other who had good insight into our paper. Fast turnaround and good comments. Big lie. Long wait but not a bad experience overall, referee comments were useful. It took almost two month for a desk reject. The letter from the editor suggests that he/she did not have a firm grasp of the paper. One unprofessional and clueless referee. editor did not read the paper carefully, waste of US$250. After the second round R&R, I only had to deal with the long reviewer. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied even though I got a fast rejection. Reason: topic/results too narrow with respect to broad audience. He gave few recommendations. Quick desk reject after less than 24 hours without comments, annoying given the submission fee. Referee reports were incredibly useful and significantly improved the paper. Editor was US-based and said that she likes the idea though! Very reputable journal with fast response policy which is good for authors: desk rejection in weeks, referee rejection in 2-3 months (usually). Very quick rejection, but I received a nice response from one of the co-editors. Total turn around time was about 40 days. One positive and one negative report. Poor. I don't know what to add. superficial comment. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. After waiting for more than 5 months I got 0 Referee reports and a rejection based on very loose comments. International Journal of Finance and Economics. 2010 . Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. awful reportreferee asked "why is this a problem?". Some good comments though. Nice when they actually read the paper. Editor couldn't find referees, rejected and claimed two reports but only one sent. Fast desk reject (Ciccone), after few days. Awful experience. One few sentence report after 5 month. Good reports, but what a punch in the gut. I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided. First response was very good (and positive), still there was a long waiting afterwards. The editor did put more weight on the negative one. No reason given. Advisors: Raquel Fernndez, Martin Rotemberg, Elena Manresa. It is definitely not worth the long wait! Very helpful referee report. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. apologize.? One report was very poor and full of bsh*t while the other was good. the journal is recovering. It too me the editor 13 months to desk reject. Overall good experience. One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor. Terrible referees. Can't complain with the decision and the entire process. 2 months, the article is still under internal review DPR had my manuscript for over a year, and never even got it under review. Rejected after 1st R&R. I wonder whether they actually read the document. Comments are mainly about rephrasing implications and minor issues. Two refereere reports and no comments from the editor on the reports. Very good experience. Referees were obviously a bad choice for this topic. Even though my paper was rejected, they will be useful to improve the paper prior to resubmission to another journal. terrible experience, after submission my paper was not sent out to referees for more than 6 months. Rejected as "Given the poor quality of provincial GDP statistics, CER has decided not to publish papers based on provincial GDP data for now until the true data series at the provincial level are reconstructed" but they are still publishing with this data see for instance Lv, Liu, and Li 2020 Fiscal incentives, competition, and investment in China. Although the paper got accepted, the quality of the comments and the editor's comments were beyond laughable and actually really make me regret having it sent there but it is too late. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. Please Login or . Anti-intellectual reasoning. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. The literature review was complete! Good reports with decent suggestions. Two weeks. All excellent reports, and good suggestions from the co-editor about what to focus on and where to send next. Other referee reports are okay, not very useful. Very disappointed at the editor who made a decision based on such a low quality report. No feedback from handling editor, No refund. Reviews were not particularly helpful. Accepted after two rounds. DE claims to have too large acceptance rate. Ultimately fair. Excellent desk reject by Larry S. Recommended a field journal by the editor. quick and clear communication with editor. Very quick handeling, decent reports. Nothing that could not be fixed in 2 days, still reject. Very efficient process. Amazing efficiency. Fit justification. Avoid Scott Adams. The peer review process was fast. The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. Friendly referee with clear remarks. One low quality (taste-based) referee report. reviews were helpful, required a month's solid work to revise. Easiest publication of my life! Nice words from the editor. desk rejection in 2 weeks. Referees asked for useless extensions and took more than six months in each round. Two lines ref report. One paragraph that dismissed four years of work. Isnt it written that this journal focuses on mathematical reasoning instead of sticking to conventional setup? The revision review was quite fast too. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy, Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript. Not sure whether it should be called "desk rejection" as the editor said he asked a friend who is an expert in the field to review my paper rather than sending it to referees. Nice words from the editor. The review process yielded good referee reports in round 1. As best I can tell, the purpose is to use a particular modeling framework to illustrate that a trade policies defined in terms of 'import-export' quotas cannot yield a Nash equilibrium of the trade game. He wanted to give the paper a careful read and this was not possible immediately. Focus of decision appeared to be on the institutional context of the paper rather than considering the economics. Comments were meant for another paper. Two years ago, I had a different paper rejected by EER, with two good referee reports and an AE negative about it. Editor recommended to submit to other journals. Smooth process, a bit too much work for this journal. Good experience. I am not in a club, whatever it is.). Very complementary and helpful reviews. Worst experience so far. Clear editor had read the paper, helpful comments. Invited to revise and resubmit the paper. Reports with no use, in one case even mentioning the need of something that was already done in the paper. UCLA Economics. Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! happy with outcome. Referee comments show that it could be an RR but the editor rejected. Accepted as it is. Research Assistant (Pre-Doc) Law and Economics. He clearly outlined the major flaws and decided to desk-reject it. Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. 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. Two useful ref reports in the first round. Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. If you are in a hurry or need one to fill you CV, then choose it.. editor very helpful. Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). Referees reasons to reject the paper are not convincing enough. The editor talked about 4 ref reports. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. No BS, great experience! The other `meh'. Got a rejection within a couple of days. Got rejection after 4 months. overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. Avoid this shitty journal. Two very helpful reports and encouraging letter from AE. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. Not sure whether to classify this as a desk or referee reject. I had much better experience in American Journal of Health Economics. It took more than 2 months for desk reject. Too narrow-minded editor. But I'm not in any club and not at an elite school (by choice). Some helpful comments. journal does not sound like a good fit for my research agenda. Submitted 4 February, rejected 29 December with 1 ok referee report that had been submitted in May. The associate Editor Ali Kutan has rejected the paper. extremely slow. Generic rejection. Referee reports OK. cannot complaint about reports but could have been faster, bad reports, of the type "i don't like it". Absolutely pathetic handling by Horner. Edmans said he wanted RoF to be top 3. Such along time frame for such a poor assessment of the paper. Mostly generic comments. Cool editor. Sadly, from the comments of the editor it was clear that she did not read the paper careully either, otherwise she would not have written the coments we got on the rejection letter. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!! Very slow, but fair process overall. Title: Researcher Location: COLOMBIA JEL Classifications:. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. quick turnaround and helpful referee report. After submitting revisions, 1 month until final decision to accept with no other edits. Although other comments on this journal say that the review process is long, I had very different experience. Referee reject after more than a year. Worst experience so far. 1 R&R round. Desk reject after 27 days by Kurt Mitman. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. Very negative experience. Very good reports. Two weeks for R&R. Relatively high submission fee. 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). Very good experience, Good experience. Good experience. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. 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. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. Referee was perceptive and pointed out serious flaws in the first draft. Very efficient; referee reports are of pretty high quality. Good editor. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. Bad report, condescending. One ok report, one poor. Process ended after 1 report. Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one). It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. It is frustrating to get rejected after convincing the referees. The law scholar did not like technical thing but I just used. Therefore, we have decided not to review the paper. Referee obviously has no clue of what's going on. Very fast reject and they sent my check back. Would try again. desk with a letter from editor. The referee has read the paper. Five weeks, submission to rejection. No reason given (just lack of fit..), no suggestions to improve, no money back. The editor read the paper carefully to make the decision. Wasted months of work. R&r from the editor with major changes suggested by one referee and the urge to strongly orientate the paper towrds one of her (editor) papers. Two thoughtful refs, one clueless. Terribly disappointing experience. Would try again in the future. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. The comments were not helpful, but at least I know that the editor has a strong bias towards the method. Desk Rejected after 2 days. Referee cites one crucial assumption to kill the paper, but the paper does not make that assumption, and clearly explains it. one referee suggested revision, one rejection, editor followed the rejection; good reports, suggestions improved the paper, Two revisions but rejected by editor, fast and fair comments, One accept with min comments, one said ok but many points/revisions, one reject, editor said too large a revision without guarantee for accept, 1 report recommended to publish, 1 pointed out minor points. Referee did clearly said that the main mechanism is not compelling but did not give a single word on why our argument is persuasive or what else we could do to improve. Considering withdrawing. Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper. your paper, after some updating to reflect the recent complementary literature, would be more appropriate for a more specialized journal.