Took 6 months for first reply (ref reject); 1 referee critical but fair, the other one very critical but didn't read the paper carefully. Interviewing at the ASSA meetings. Spent a week rewriting the paper according to requests of the editor ("put figures in the end of the paper" and such), then got a desk reject. Overall- great experience. writing? Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. Economics Job Market Threads. Constructive and helpful comments from the co-editor. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again, Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees. One ref gave R&R; the other two were rejections for not being of sufficient interest for AEJM. Three mediocre reports. Editor overturned referee's decisions with poor justification. 5 days. The editor rejects the paper and I think it is fair, but I do see that the paper can be improved based on these reports. Paper was internally valid-(ish) but not a big enough contribution. Comments dubious at best. 1 was more positive and ref. Didn't make the paper better at all. not worth the time and effort. Editor made some quick comments and recommended 3 journals a tier below. The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. First round of referee reports obtained in another 2 months. It took 1 year from submission to acceptance, but the journal was quick, I took to long to do the revisions. I am happy with the outcome. Also the editor gave us good comments. After two interventions got 1 ridiculous report. Great experience. Not enough novelty. The editor (Hongbin Li) rejects because of lack of fir with the journal's mission. The report was substantive and some comments were helpful, though there was only one of them. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. Quick-ish, 10 weeks. Incredibly tough process with three rounds of revisions - first round ended up me writing a response as long as the original paper. Efficient handling by editor. Definetely the referees liked the idea and wanted to improve paper's quality not to argue with its contribution. One referee was OK with almost no comments. Disappointing turnaround for this journal. Quick response. Paper was accepted in 1 month after the submission. Given all that has happened with JPE in recent years, don't think I will waste my time and money with them again. Submitted a really cool COVID-19 theory and emperical paper. Overall fair process. No evidence anyone read the paper, even though they probably have the highest submission fee among econ journals. The first round took too long (~10 months). Outrageously poor process. Fast desk reject (~2 weeks) with a couple of brief, helpful comments from the editor. 2 weeks to generic desk reject with no comments whatsoever. Much better than overal reputation of journal. Wouldn't submit here again. High quality editing. After revising the paper based on the comments of two referees, the Associate editor chimed in with his useless comments to reject the paper. Great experience in general! Sent my paper to another different journal. Took 6 weeks. paper is short so 6 months for each round is very long. A good referee report and very efficient editor. 6 months to first response, then a two sentence ref report, one sentence of which was clarified extremely quickly and one that entailed a ton of extra work. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Two very constructive reports. Had to withdraw after ten months of waiting. Shameless people. Paper desk rejected in 4 days. At least the fee is refunded. Decent referee reports. Seems to be a fair process, 13 months for editor to desk reject because the paper has no empirical section, One good report, very constructive, the other one rejecting the paper. The editor, not having confidence in the reports, decided to reject, I believe. Great judgment. All the points are addressable so I would've liked an RR but I'm not part of the club so I can't complain. One very useful report from a critical referee, and one mediocre. Desk rejected by editor, who said that editor in chief rejects ~40% and he rejects about the same. 2 weeks. UCLA Economics. One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. Very quick rejection (24 hours), with nice words from the editor, who obviously read the paper. One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. Desk rejected in 14 days, just long enough to get hopes up, with boilerplate "not general interest.". Very, very disappointed! Paper is about a politically charged issue, so I would like to think that more than one reviewer should be asked to submit a report. Less than 2 months for the decision with 2 reports, which is very quick. contribution is not enough. Good handling by the editor. Ali Kutan is the associate editor, finally accepted the paper. Editor decided to reject because he could only find one person to review. The referee had a chip on their shoulder and the editor stepped in. Quick response. Desk/ref rejected. Overall a good experience that will help the paper! Editor acknowledge that it was a bad draw. Process ended after 1 report. The editor did not even realized this and rejected. English. Editor said all refs must agree for acceptance but only one ref report provided! Manuscript was withdrawn - editor had assigned referees within 3 months of submission but then these were apparently not forthcoming. The other report was useless. My first submission in AE and it is the best experience ever. 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. Helpful comments from the editor (besides the usual thy shall cite my papers). Very good experience: I wish all my rejected submissions were as fast and polite. Very bad reports. Seems safe to ignore the submission guideline: "In tables, please report standard errors in parentheses but do not use *s to report significance levels.". Extremely efficient process with good comments by referees. it ?could ?be ?the ?case ?that ?I ?have? Clearly he had read the paper. Very good referee and associate editor report. Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. Not even one comment. The editor did put more weight on the negative one. Waited a year for two low quality reports. Decent experience; overall fast, fair and constructive. Suggested Ecological Economics. Great comments from the referees and editor. When we chased, we received detailed referee reports and R&R quickly, but were given just 2 weeks to make massive changes to the paper - we withdrew and used comments to publish elsewhere. 100 USD for such VALUABLE suggestion. Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. The second one was a "consultation by telephone" but no feedback to us. Didn't really get a clear sense from the negative reports why they rejected. Great experience. Horrible associate editor, Arkolakis, rejected based on his personal views. Quick (10 days), but useless. I was politely told that I should have cited more JRU papers. Editor uninterested. Polite / nice email from Editor. Long time to first response and had to chase up editor, but comments were helpful and editor was very engaged in the revision process. One referee was thoughtful and recommended acceptance; Second referee asked for more results; AE agreed with the 1st referee. One very good report, the other average-to-good. No substantive comments from any of the three referees. Rejected with a 1-page AE report, after almost 3 months. Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! R&R only one round; after submitting the revised version, only waited for six days until final acceptance. Great experience. This was the worst referee report ever. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and about two months in the second round. It took more than 2 months for desk reject. ), 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. Rejection came on Easter morning. I got the referee reports after 2.5 months from submission. I submitted two papers and both took a very long time to get referee comments from and the sets of referee comments read like they were written by undergraduate students. Unbelievable! Extensive, constructive and mildly positive ref report. Useful comments from the editor who had to stand in for the unresponsive second referee. Do not send your papers to this journal. Editor said there are two reports but I only received one. Russia was born in Kiev. Extremely helpful comments that significantly improved the paper in the end. 1 very useful report and associate editor comments. Constructive and very specific. good referee reports and relatively quick response, 1 Report after 8 months, Seemed like all points raised were easily answerable. Desk reject with what appeared to be constructive comments but on closer inspection were worthless (points already made in the paper). 1 Referee provided useful comments that improved the paper. other outlets are suggested. Editor obviously read over the paper and gave a couple of helpful comments. Lousy reports showing lack of proper reading. Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Putea MatuaWellington - New Zealand, Assistant Director, Economics Rejected after one round of review despite all referee comments being addressed. Somewhat useful comments from Department Editor. 5 weeks for a desk reject. Editor agreed to R&R and suggested major changes but then didn't like the resulting paper. fast process; only one report who was mainly referencing a single paper (SSRN, not published, single author); no useful feedback, disappointing experience. I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. Editor rejected. the referee report adds nothing, and the editor rejects based on the meaningless report. Extremely bad experience with this journal. Cantillon is not a good editor. I appreciate the quick desk reject. Job Market Paper: Local Polynomial Estimation of Time-Varying Parameters in GMM. He further suggested an exercise that was already illustrated in 2 figures, 1 table and described in the text! 23 hours and 30 minutes after submission, desk reject from Shleifer. took the money. Very professional handling of the editor with very detailed comments and helpful reports. Came back to my office at 12:05. Great experience. 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) 2 reports minimal work, 1 report some work. 3 weeks for a desk rejectand they keep the $100. Single-blind review system for a 250 bucks fee. If you are in a hurry or need one to fill you CV, then choose it.. editor very helpful. Write any form of equation and you're skewered! Not anymore. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. very quick response and a useful referee report. Our results didn't change. Expected much better from this journal. My first ever publication. Brief, ignorant, editor's letter. Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. Burak Uras (Tilburg AP), Caitlin Hegarty (Michigan), Diana Sverdlin Lisker (MIT), Suzanna Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Garima Sharma (MIT), Ruozi Song (USC), Heitor Sandes Pellegrina (NYU Abu Dhabi), Juanma Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Katherine Stapleton (WB/Oxford), Dario Tortarolo (Berkeley), Jonah Rexer (Wharton), Anna Vitali (UCL), Livia Alfonsi (Berkeley), Binta Zahra Diop (Oxford), Shafaat Yar Khan (WB/Rochester), Althoff (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Vaidya (Northwestern), Chan (Stanford), Bodere (NYU), Pernoud (Stanford), Kang (Stanford GSB), Minni (LSE), Otero (Berkeley), Bodere (NYU), Vergara (Berkeley), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Carry (CREST), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Ospital (UCLA), Lanzani (MIT), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Kennedy (Berkeley), Souchier (Stanford). Referee reports were quite helpful in refining the paper. I wonder whether they actually read the document. Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that! Received 2 very nice and 1 okay-ish report. Revisions done in another two months and sent back to referees. Seems the process is very efficient with the new editorial board, Fantastic experience: fast and very good comments. Referee one was inexpert in the field, and suggested we cite mostly irrelevant papers published by the handling editor. No reply to my e-mail. 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. Very kind letter from the editor. Overall horrifying experience. We were authorized to hire 2 macro candidates, and we have now done so. It seems to me that this was an easy way for the new Editor to reject the paper! One referee report was very good; the second was also modestly helpful. Mediocre assessment from referee with some helpful suggestions. Accepted without revisions. 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. International Journal of Game Theory?(Springer). Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal. One (very) useful report and one useless, 5 months from submission to acceptance, Desk reject in an hour. Do not send a paper to BE JM, Very bad experience. Ref2 was not. Very professional editors. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. We give the editors one week to judge the overall contribution and if acceptable send your paper to an associate editor. Desk reject after two weeks. Three rounds. The contribution of the paper as it stands to be insu cient for publication in The Econometrics Journal. Editor clearly read the paper, sent a long email telling me how much he liked it but that it would likely run into trouble with referees. Desk reject in 1 week. Very helpful feedback that made this a better paper. One referee report was fine. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. Both have suggestions (one extensive, one less so). Fair enough. Ref reports both frank and helpful. Fast desk reject (Ciccone), after few days. Waste of time. Very good reports that help us to improve the paper a lot. Fair referee reports, but I had to wait pretty long. Resubmitted and the editor rejected the paper on the basis of concerns that were never raised before in the process (and are incorrect IMHO).