Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. Summary understated contribution of the paper making it looking boring. Apart from long waiting time (editor part of the old guard at JPE), positive experience. To summarize, this reviewer apparently thought he had better English than Shakespeare. Super fast and clear feedback. Fast and very competent review. Thanks for quick decision. Rejected, but editor and referees were fair. I sent an email after 5 months of submission and another after 6 months. Despite perceptions they do desk reject. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. Bad experience. The positive report points out more contributions than we claim. Overall very good experience. 1.5 weeks overall, Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics. His comments indicate he did not have an open arm to read introduction carefully to desk reject. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. Excellent experience, the editor was clear on what is required after first round RR. I expected better from this journal. editor(s) provided good comments too. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. Bad experience overall, although the reports came quickly. The reviewers "firmly" recommend rejection but I see that most problems can be fixed. Was desk rejected in one day. Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). Thorough referee reports with substantive comments. Some useful comments from his friend. The editor rejected based on flimsy reasons. 10 days for desk reject. Obviously, being turned down after a two-year long process and a very extensive revision is bad for a young author. Quick, very good feedback. Not for the faint-hearted. Very different than my past experience. Excellent review process. Two reports. Now Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. a bit slowtwo general positive+one negative reports, and the editor rejected itfeel sad, but not too bad experience Average (low) quality reports. In a typical year, every MIT Economics PhD graduate finds a job. Absolutely pathetic handling by Horner. Editor said there are two reports but I only received one. Editor rejected based on own concerns. One referee does not follow simple math, immediately assumes the model is wrong and the editor takes his side. Three reports, two reports are with doable suggestions, one is low-quality. Editor was Nielsen. the revision requirements seem achievable. rejected by editor, saying should submit to other similar journal. Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). The other clearly did not understand what is going on and wrote some junk. Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! Reasonable. Received acceptance on the same day i resubmitted the paper. This referee made no specific comments. The editor's comments were no less helpful and extensive as referees' reports. Desk rejected in the 24 hour window. Very good experience. First response in less than 3 months. "Not a good fit". Pretty efficient turnaround. While the goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. Made some changes, argued against other changes, got accepted. Excellent handling. Editor accepted the paper after we made some modifications recommended by the referee. No report yet. Said the paper was to mathematical/econometrical for the journal. Fast turnaround and good comments. Environment, Development, and Sustainability. Some fair comments which are already addressed in the paper but no one paid attention to that Quick and reasonable. Good experience. The revised submission was accepted within a month. Waited for almost a year and sent a couple of emails to the editor; promised us a response in two weeks. Water Research Manager (Project Manager) The referee asked for revision but Barnett or an AE rejected after I emailed them after 6 months. 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. Great turnaround I guess? The Editor sugested the JIE. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience. very efficient process and useful reports from editor and referess. I knew I shot too high. Referee comments were useful, editor clearly did not understand judging from his remarks, which made it frustrating. These advices do make the paper better. Useless reports. There is only one report called review number 2! Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. Market Design; Organizational Economics; Personnel Economics; Race and Stratification in the Economy; Risks of Financial Institutions ; Urban Economics; . Very efficient journal, 3 very helpful reports from a coeditor and 2 referees. Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy, Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript. I revised as a new submission based on comments from a previous reviewer at the journal, referee report was short, but demonstrated expertise, could have addressed all of the comments but ultimately rejected under KS. Will submit again. Waited 13 months to two mildly positive reports. One of them gave some good suggestions, but I disagree with some other points she made. 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 recommended field journal submission. Two weeks to desk reject. 1 very weak report, 1 very useful, AE's report extremely weak. Accepted 1 1/2 weeks after revision was submitted. Annoying! No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. It seems to me that the editor rejected based on how well the article was written, rather than the substance of the work. Emailed the editor at JPE for a brief explanation of why the paper was desk rejected so that I could improve it. Much faster than last experience with the journal, same result. Still, I have to contact them again after 9 weeks because they did nothing with my paper. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. The editor rejected it though. Will never submit again to ER. Referees mostly wanted me to provide more background and a deeper policy discussion. Health economics, Applied microeconometrics Jacob Klimek The Dynamics of Health Behaviors, Pregnancies, and Birth Outcomes. It is probably not surprising that the editor simply failed to understand the theoretical model and the referees had zero understanding of the empirics. Ended up being a better paper. Faster than I expected given horror stories i have heard here and elsewhere, and with good comments from refs and editor. Job Market. Secondary: Applied Macroeconomics and International Economics. Associate editor rejected on poor grounds. Except when I have coauthored with someone who is at an elite school, I've been desk rejected every time at QJE. Overall, fair process. Complete waste of 10 months and $200. took 5 months. Most inefficient handling ever. Desk rejection in 3 days. For three months the editor has not assigned referees! Will submit again. R&R was helpful. Submission to a special issue. Two straightforward reports calling for revision. High submission fees. Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. Editor said he is sorry for the wait still waiting for the outcome of the second round. Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. Helpful reports in general. Entire process takes 1 month. View Board. Found out it was rejected only by contacting them. Very quick response. Poor experience, will not submit again. Less than a month for two strong referee reports on a non-experimental paper: useful suggestions and some parts of the paper were obviously not clear enough, although no intractable issues so rejection was disappointing. Efficient and professional. Worst experience ever. Editor probably didn't go beyond the abstract. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. Very reputable journal with fast response policy which is good for authors: desk rejection in weeks, referee rejection in 2-3 months (usually). Reason given: "not general enough." Every time I'm impressed by how precise the reviews and suggestions are. Quite slow response for a mid-tier journal. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. Candidate Job Market Roster. two positive reports and one strongly negative report; the editor Andrew Street gave me a R&R; after I spent one month writing a 30-page response, the negative referee still argued against my paper based on his misunderstanding of my paper; the editor finally chose to reject my paper based on the comments of this referee without careful reading. Good process. Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. 1 Month and 10 days for first decision is too long. good reports. Sometime he asks for favours from authors such as finding sponsors for special issues for other journals such as Emerging Markets Finance and Trade or ask authors to organise conferences and use the proceeding to cover the cost of the special issues. Two fantastic referee reports within 1.5 months. Referee didn't buy identification strategy. Helpful editor. Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. Not all theory papers are welcomed. Finally very well handled by the editor. Very pleased. Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. 2 months for a generic desk rejection with no comment whatsoever.. but of course I am not in the club. Fast response time. 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 post one row which has the wrong info on journal name, should be JPE rather than QJE). All of them are much speedier and you will actually get helpful comments that will improve your paper. I urged the editor to give me reports 3 months after the initial submission. No evidence anyone read the paper, even though they probably have the highest submission fee among econ journals. Professor Andreoni is the primary contact for prospective employers who have questions about a candidate's vitae, experience or research fields. Will never submit to this journal again. Think one more time before sending here. Referred to field, seems editor at least scanned and maybe even read the whole thing. inquiry after 6 month: "several referees invited but still no reports", rejected after 9 month: "sent the paper to four reviewers but only received two reports". Got published after three rounds. Useful ref reports and helpful comments from co-editor. Very quick handling but refereeing quality just absurd. Desk rejected after more than 5 months, avoid, International Review of Applied Economics, receive first response within 2 weeks. One excellent and detailed (5pages) referee report which helped a lot in revising the paper to a much higher level. "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". One rubbish review from a referee who had no idea what the paper was about.