Very fast and fair process, despite the negative outcome. Comments were helpful. Took about two weeks. Desk reject in one day. Second referee made some useful suggestions. Very nice experience! The reports were good and helpful. Two horribly low quality reports. The transfer offer was helpful, though, since we did not have to pay a submission fee in order to send the paper to the other journal. 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. superficial comment. comments were not very insoghtful, but decision & process overall fair. Ref needed 6 months to produce a paragraph of a response. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. Explains longish time to first review. main message was that paper is a poor fit. Report very critical but useful nonetheless. very good experience and fast acceptance after addressing referees' comments. 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. Rejected by editor with a comment that referees might not like the paper, Desk rejected after 1 month without any comments. Worst experience with a paper submission ever. Very low process. Desk reject for paper being too narrow for the audience of the journal. No comments whatsoever, in an un-signed email with 2 generic sentences, Desk rejected after one week with kind words from co-editor and recommended field journal, Poor justification, pure taste by Debraj Ray. The rejection came with a useless referee report. Considered waste of time here. We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. Rejected on pretty poor grounds by an associate editor. One referee report was fine. Very efficient process. He/she also asked unrelated information such as why the market offer two similar contracts, which is not the scope of the study. Overall positive experience. Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. cooperative? One of the papers has over 3000 citations. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. 4 months for a desk rejection, frustratingly slow. Water Research Manager (Project Manager) (It doesn't seem like a club journal. Took quite long for a desk rejection. AER Insights: Generic rejection without any thought or suggestion. Handled by an editor who is not in the same field. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. Particularly, one of the referees seemed like he didn't read a single word past the intro. That indicates he/she did not finish reading the paper. One almost non-existent referee report (basically two lines just saying the paper is not broad enough), one very detailed and overall positive report. After 4 months it remained Under review and these comments I get from the Reviewer: "You have a good idea. One good quality report suggesting minor revisions after 1 month. The quality of the report was disappointing. Much faster than last experience with the journal, same result. I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Would choose again. Very clear that two of the three referees hadn't read the paper. Mark Watson was the editor. Think I got lucky. Ph.D. Sent it to another top 5 instead where it got accepted after one round of revisions - never give up guys! 1 was very low quality -- couple of bullet points that made clear reviewer had not read paper. Referees' comments were useful. The editor clearly had a look at least at the introduction and gave encouraging comments. Technical issues handled by non-experts. Referee didn't buy identification strategy. Pretty clear that whoever desk rejected didn't even read (or couldn't understand) the paper. This page collects information about the academic mathematics job market: positions, short lists, offers, acceptances, etc. Good helpful report asking for few corrections. Helpful editor. The other one was less so. Editor was very reasonable. Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago. The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. The paper is now much stronger. One refree report who made very useful comments that helped significantly improve the paper. two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. Although desk-rejected, I am very satisfied. Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. Still my favorite rejection of all time - used Shakespeare in a footnote, and first referee (whose English was subpar) said that the footnote was "very poorly written." Therefore, we have decided not to review the paper. Expected better from an AEJ. I published my article in a very decent journal later. My new favorite journal, Very clear instructions from editor for revision. Horrible process. 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. The positive report points out more contributions than we claim. But it does move my prior of affiliation doesnt matter, just the paper (yes, a prior that no one here seems to have). Have they done first-round interviews? Also suggested 3 very good field Journal. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. One extremely thorough and helpful report, one shorter but still raising valid points. Shockingly low quality reports that were nearly identical. submitted half a year ago. Comments are constructive. Accepted without need for further revisions. Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations, two reports, comments not always very clear on what was wanted but still helpful. Kind and informed letter from editor. They pointed out several issues of my paper, but they are either wrong or something that can be easily fixed. The referee must be some leading scholar in the field and I just wanna say thanks to him/her. journal does not sound like a good fit for my research agenda. One report useless, read only the first quarter of the paper. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. Faculty of Economics Austin . My paper was in "submitted" status for almost 5 months when made a query. Students on the Job Market - NYU Stern - New York University A stronger editor could have handled the submission more efficiently also pointing out the weakness of the 2nd report. Says model's too complex then suggests an addition which would have tripled the state space. Although QJE may be one of the oldest professional journal of economics published in the English language, it is also stale. Outright accept after first resubmission still came as a surprise given JIE typically has 2-3 rounds. R&R after 3-4 months. What a terrible journal. 1 month to wait for a desk reject is too long. 14 days to desk reject, worthless generic email that said nothing on why it was rejected, merely that they "get lots of papers. Lots of minor standardized formating requests, then a gap of 10 weeks to get accepted. It's quick, but the reports are really bad and unhelpful. Fast response time. Job Market Candidates. Other referee hadn't read the paper at all. Editor claimed an expert in the field reviewed the paper while the referee admitted in his first sentence of the report that he is not. Slow as hell. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. 3 months (!) Okay referee reports. the? possible that the editor reviewed it himself, but was a fairly straightforward accept, trivial revisions only. Relatively high submission fee. I am very surprised by this unprofessional oversight. Reviewers did not understand anything. Desk reject after 3 days. Probably he sent the paper to referees because he couldn't desk reject it, but his mind was made-up before hand. Despite disappointing turnout, reports were good with useful and specific suggestions on ways to improve the paper. Response was less than two months from submission -- super quick. Isnt it written that this journal focuses on mathematical reasoning instead of sticking to conventional setup? Between two referee reports and two conference discussions, I have some things to consider for future submission. Split referees, Adda came down on the side of the negative ones. rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report. Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda. Katz wrote his usual bs about my fascinating paper. Andrew deJong The Effect of Common Ownership on Pricing: Evidence from the Airline Industry . Two referee reports and one report from the associate editor. Fast and clean. Desk rejected in less than a week. PhD Candidates in Economics | NBER The comments were not helpful, but at least I know that the editor has a strong bias towards the method. Great experience in general! 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. One ref decided to the opportunity to pimp their own working paper. Website | CV Desk reject after 2 months. 4.5 weeks to desk reject. very efficient process but experience depends crucially on editor. Wasted 17 months. Fast. Second round 4 months before acceptance. Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. Editor guidance also helpful. We agreed with most of the comments. Editor read the paper and outlined clear and fair reasons for rejection. One detailed report. 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. Very good experience. Suggested to submit to RSUE. Decent experience; overall fast, fair and constructive. Terribly run journal. Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. Minor comments from editor who appears to have at least gotten the gist of the paper. 2 reports and 2 rounds.