We do not need dumb editors!! Two month later it is rejected and get two referee reports (fair enough there). The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. Therefore, we have decided not to review the paper. Referees ok, not great. Unbelievably fast and helpful. Referees didn't read the article properly! Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. Very quick and very fair. My previous two research papers were also desk rejected by Barro. Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. all in all four years without ever seeing a referee report. 1 months for desk reject. A nice formated letter saying that the topic was not interesting enough for the audience of the Journal. Editor (Taylor) gave additional advice. WBER changes editor and the new editor (Pavcnik) reject the paper. Fast and very competent review. Under one month for one very brief report saying not good enough for the journal and a completely indecipherable AE report. 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. Glad that they didn't waste my time. Not a great experience. Wouldn't submit here again. Invites for 2nd round zoom interviews sent today. Sent it to another top 5 instead where it got accepted after one round of revisions - never give up guys! Editor rejected based on own concerns. A very positive experience for a filler publication. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. The outcome (referee rejection) was acceptable but 5 month waiting is a large waste of time! High submission fees. Editor did seem to have read the paper, possibly in more detail than the referee who comments several thing that was included in paper. No comments from the unknown handling editor. I don't know what to add. There was no mistake. One week desk rejection with form letter. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. Editor said he appreciated the previous paper but seemed to reject this one (which is probably better) since it fits in with a similar literature. Referees rejected the paper or asked for major revisions. Good experience. The associate editor however provided some useful comments which helped us improve the paper. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. Unbased rejection after more than six months with mediocre reports and editorial justification. Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. Fair report but not anything that couldn't be corrected in R&R. Note that some areas need filling in with actual pages. International Journal of Finance and Economics. Editor noted that paper of an associate editor was not cited but did not mention the name of the paper. Seriously, avoid this journal. The editor's comments were no less helpful and extensive as referees' reports. Not clear if the paper was even read. 6 weeks for a desk reject. ", Two reports - one thorough and one probably by a grad student, One associate editor recommended rejection and no other comments/suggestions, but one referee provided very useful comments and s/he seems to be positive about the paper. I was pleased with the experience because I've never made this far with them. Two useful ref reports in the first round. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. Rejected because topic did not fit the journal. Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. Referee's only objection is flat out incorrect (i discussed report with colleagues in my field). Editor letter saying that what we do is not so new. Academic Jobs Wiki | Fandom Awful experience. It took the editor 3 months to write two paragraphs and reject. Accepted after two rounds of revisions. Very good comments from both reviewers and the editor, Frank Sloan. Quick response from referees and editor. ", Fact: the SAT and GRE are just thinly veiled IQ tests. One very good referee report that helps improve the quality of the paper. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough. High quality editing. English. rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report. The editor was fair and provided reasons why the paper was rejected. Desk rejected by editor, who said that editor in chief rejects ~40% and he rejects about the same. But no referee reports were supplied to me. Editor was polite. Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. very fast response and useful comments from a referee. Our results didn't change. Referee reject without any comments after 14 months of chasing the journal. Bad experience. My paper on the "The Impact of MTV's 16 and Pregnant on Teen Childbearing" was quickly accepted due to its relevance and awesome nature. 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. Second was uninformative. my ?defense,? Finance Job Rumors (488,736) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,359) Micro Job Rumors (15,223) Macro Job Rumors (9,790) European Job Market (100,917) China Job Market (103,439) Industry Rumors (40,300) Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. Submitted in 2014. Poorly managed. 2 very short reports after waiting 11 months and paying a crazy submission fee. Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. AE also helpful. Two days between handing in the revision and acceptance. took 7 months for 1 referee report, but the R&R was quick. Worst. Basically useless, a waste of time. The paper is not of the interest of SCW readers! Fast turn around with great referee reports that significantly improved the paper. Very helpful referee report. Average time between rounds of R&R (months), EJMR | Job Market | Candidates | Conferences | Journals | Night Mode | Privacy | Contact. With my 4-6 data observations (different journals), EL is definitely the most efficient journal. Larry suggested to send it to field journal. Waiting for R&R results. Desk rejected but the co-editor read the manuscript carefully and gave substantive comments. Tyranny of the single review. A good journal, Quick and fair outcome with a nice response from the editor, Good experience with every step completed in a timely fashion. Two rounds of R&R! Editor was super helpful. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. Result not general enough for ECMA. Initial response was quick. Journal always replied to me saying it is delayed and I finally withdrew after 2 years with no response. Very good experience: I wish all my rejected submissions were as fast and polite. A black bitch barks at East Europe. The paper was not sent to the referee but instead the editor said it was reviewed by the editorial board. One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. Reviews were not particularly helpful. The report was substantive and some comments were helpful, though there was only one of them. Eight months is a long wait though. The report must have been farmed out to some grad student who couldn't write. so,? Helpful editor. Never submit to this journal again. AVOID it. No report yet. Editor was fair, his decision was understandble, but 6 months is clearly too long. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. Short turn around time. Referees obviously did not read the paper. Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. desk rejected in a week. Suggested to submit to a good journal. interesting and polite reports. 2/3 ref reports were detailed and useful. Referee was perceptive and pointed out serious flaws in the first draft. 1 very helpful report. Process a bit slow. Couple of comments why the paper does not fit (relatively reasonable). 4 months for ref. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. Three referee reports. To avoid. Still not a fan of this journal. 14 days for a desk rejection. 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. Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. Two very good reports, one probably written by the editor. Avoid at all cost. Good process (and none of the coauthors are from 02139). After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. He gave few recommendations. Sent a specialized financial accounting paper. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. No specfic comment on the paper. Constructive referee report. Very helpful feedback that made this a better paper. Two referee reports. Fair decision and process, 2 mildly positive reviews, editor shot it down. waiting 19 months as of today, sent 3 reminfers, Hall nor anybody else from the journal havent responded so far to any of my emails. I published my article in a very decent journal later. Heckman handled paper. Terrible, very short referee reports. Rejected after revision for reasons that had nothing to do with the revision and should've been brought up on the first decision. complete waste of time, Very nice editor's letter. Not so many comments; recommended two very good field journals. Desk reject with generic letter at 3 weeks. Fast turnover. Who are these people?? Reasonable decision. 3 Reports. Very slow process. Completely unacceptable. thorough but not brutal enough - the paper was not very a contribution at all at the time and needed a much harsher rejection, seriously, referee reports were very thorough and demonstrated expertise, rejections were fair - just wish I would have gotten these reviewers the first time I submitted the paper. Great experience - referee reports really helped improve the paper. No referee reports, just got notified I was accepted. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. Referee report useless. Worst experience ever nearly one year just to hear "not much new, therefore reject" 100 bucks for nothing. Fair editor. Useful and encouraging comments from referees, who appeared very interested in improving the paper and offering helpful suggestions to do so. They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. Reports were of moderate quality. Excellent editor, balanced referees and good timing. No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. Interesting but not a good fit. Received 3 high-quality referee reports within 4 months. 1 reviewer R&R, two reject. Submission is waste of time. Not a good fit. Probably the fastest journal I've had experience with. Overall, not bad experience. Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. The editor read the paper carefully to make the decision. Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. Mentioned but did not provide reports, just asked for a more policy oriented conclusion, unresponsive to emails. Editor then read the paper and rejected it. accepted immediately after minor revision. 3 weeks for a desk reject. Fast desk reject. Instead, the reviewer says you did not cite a literature that is totally beside the point, the main concept of your paper is not mentioned not even once in that literature. Very helpful referee reports. 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful). Clearly a club journal. Big lie. Long reports with some good comments. Quick desk reject and no comments of substance (form letter) but no cost of submission. 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. Extremely fast and with 2 high quality RRs. 1 week. Editor Chandra rejected with one ref report. They should just ask me $60. Would submit here again now that I know what to expect. The AE finally conceded that I was right and the referee was wrong - but decided to reject the paper anyway! Desk reject after about 2 weeks; friendly letter, not sufficiently novel enough (which is fair, not my best paper, IJIO 4th shot, paper now at 2nd tier field). Expedient. Desk rejected in 1 week. Recommended rejection. Referee says R&R, but editor decides to reject outright. Reports very helpful. One reviewer asking for minor revisions, the other clearly reject the paper. one ok, one very short and superficial referee report. Website | CV I appreciate the quick desk reject. Very useful comments from referees. Fair process and good report. Letter gives no mention of reasons for rejection and even unclear on paper's final status. Environment, Development, and Sustainability. rejected by editor, saying should submit to other similar journal. Very good experience. Hence, terrible. In anyway, you need to be very careful when responding with him, he can easily upset you with a rejection. 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. long waiting time. One report was very poor and full of bsh*t while the other was good. Quick response. Good experience, great turnaround. reports. Good editing process. Apparent that editor read the paper. Should have read the comments here about how badly run this journal is. If you don't like my paper then desk reject the first time, and don't ask me to resubmit! Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. Came back with a reject, but reports were at least somewhat useful. This journal has published MANY papers using these methods and policy makers regularly fund these methods.