Reports were sound and improved the paper substantially. Referee reports were on the shrt side, but competent and polite, unfrtunately I doubt that the comments received will help improving the paper. Main reason for this is that they assigned a different associate editor on the second round which I find highly unusual. Will submit again. Very efficient process. 5 days. recommend to send to some other theory journals but those theory journals have said I should send to this journal. One very low quality and unfriendly report. Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda. The process was very fast. Note that the shorter the time span considered, the more likely the ranking is going to be spurious. Not even one comment. 7 months for 2 reviews (and one reviewer was already familiar with paper). Good experience. Don't think they even bothered reading the first page. Editor (Collins) might read the paper, but did not say much. Good communication and seemed very efficient. Good reports. Editor didn't read the paper. Apparently the assigned coeditor left and paper got stuck. University of Sheffield. Disappointing referee: a few useful comments, but mostly low-grade and somewhat hostile. Improved the paper significantly. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, excellent experience. Referee didn't buy identification strategy. Do not submit there. But referees are very negative. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. Desk reject in a week. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. The editor suggested an alternative outlet, which was where the paper eventually got published. 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. Not a good fit. Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. The referees' comments were very much on target and thoughtful. editor did not read the paper carefully, waste of US$250. The main sugguestion is to come up with a theoretical model and erase half of the work done. The other review was somewhat on point in its criticism, though I can'r give him/her the credit as the shortcoming was itself mentioned in the paper. There is only one report called review number 2! Super quick process. a positive experience, all in all. The editor said that enjoyed the paper very much but the contributon is not sufficiently broad for a general interest journal as JHR and fits better into a labour journal. referees said "nice but not great". very good and fair comments in a short time, Two good reports plus some comments from editor. Referees mostly wanted me to provide more background and a deeper policy discussion. As a theoretical contribution, it is not sufficient for Economics Letters. Formulaic letter. All in all it was a fair rejection and a good experience overall. The AE also provided his own review. Comments didn't make sense. Very fast and efficient. One very good report, 6 pages long. No meaningful comments. Reports were split. Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested, Still waiting for the first response - slow. Mess with the submission, as they were changing editors. Thanks for quick decision. R&R, took forever, reports mentioned but not provided, not responsive to emails. Rejected with a 1-page AE report, after almost 3 months. Said the contribution was too small, which I accept. The editor (Ravikumar) gave me an R&R with reasonable requirements. Single-blind review system for a 250 bucks fee. Very good referee reports. Reasonable response. Single report. Very quick response. One very good referee report out of three. Reviewers likely not in my area; rather superficial comments. Avoid if you can. Quick turnaround with two okay reports. I am currently studying the interaction between technological and demographic changes and the labor market. Comments were non-constructive and some were even wrong. Editor offers insightful suggestions as well. Worst experience so far. Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper, no longer a serious all purpose journal imho; "desk reject" after 6 mos on the basis of style in the abstract, Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded, One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end, Terrible experience. The journal originally sent me the referee's letter to the editor instead of the referee report - took almost a week to actually get the report. Very bad experience as referee kept asking for more and more and finally said document was now too long and findings not interesting enough. Helpful reports in general. Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. One positive review, one negative, referee took the side of the negative. Though nothing extremely deep, comments were of acceptable quality. The editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions. game theoretic contribution not significant enough for publishing at this journal, three rounds of R&R (two with the referees, one with the editor); very good experience, reviews vastly improved the paper, Very fast review process (note: it was a special issue). Home | Economics Job Market Rumors It appears they don't like overly technical papers (it's an interdisciplinary journal so depends on who the editor is at the time - if not an economist, then avoid). One very good report, another one heavily biased against methodology, yet helpful. 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. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. One referee not only did not read the paper but criticized something the paper does not do at all! Editorial office very helpful. Sounded like the referees couldn't let go off other papers' methodologies. Would submit again. Somewhat useful comments from Department Editor. No surprising, but referee report was sloppy and incorrect. On this basis the paper is unsuitable for JAPE and the decision is to reject the paper. Two referee reports. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. Long wait, decision was communicated with a delay of 3 months after reports had been received. Desk reject - research objectives and empirical methods questioned, paper referred to field journal. The editor was Christian Pop-Eliches. Ridiculous experience. Reject and resubmit. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. It seems that the last guy didn't read the paper carefully and I wonder how it could take 4month to write such a poor report. Editor realized the mistake and suggested to resubmit after implementing additional revisions (another 2+ months of work). After the second round R&R, I only had to deal with the long reviewer. Nothing in the email suggested that anyone had actually read the paper. This is why I'll never get married Economics Job Market Rumors I was politely told that I should have cited more JRU papers. Very long time for first response. Referee really helped me to improve this paper with a great report. Desk rejected in a month. One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. In general, you could bulid up a career writting notes on methodological errors publisehd in this journal. 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. 2/2 referee reports were positive and suggested R&R because the contribution was significant enough. Desk reject after 1 month. Good experiences --- fast (1 month for both the first and R&R round), good reports, editor is also very helpful. Rather short reports for waiting 6 months. Very fast process but no comment from the Associate Editor. Other outlet probably more suitable. (It doesn't seem like a club journal. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. Fast Review process. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper, Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. Constructive and very detailed referee comments improved the paper. Horrible experience. Yes, last week. Very poor quality referee report after waiting for more than 7 months. From the comments it could have been an R&R, at least the referee and editor comments were helpful and will help to improve the paper, Though it is rejcted, I want to express my thankness to the refreee, who provdes a exremly high quality report. Good experience. Would definitely recommend it even if it's a longshot. An uprising journal so I recommend people to publish here. The editor does not respond to emails. Standard comments, paper's topic just not good enough. all in all, a costly but friendly and competent experience. relatively fast, but referees totally uninformed of the literature. I was worried about the wait, but in the end got a very good editorial letter (from Reis) with great suggestions. One referee seemed inexperienced and little informative comments. After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. Editor made some quick comments and recommended 3 journals a tier below. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. Desk rejected in 2 days with a very short report "better fit for a finance journal". Kicker: next day got an email to renew my CEA membership to be able to keep submitting to CJE! it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. And he did not find the topic interesting. One refree report who made very useful comments that helped significantly improve the paper. Very good editor recommending a field journal. Accepted w/o further revision 18 days after resubmit. If you want a fair treatment - stay away from this journal. Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor. Particularly, one of the referees seemed like he didn't read a single word past the intro. One weak report, one reviewer that clearly did not read the paper but did not like what he claimed we did and suggested we do other things which did make much less sense and one reviewer that gave comments that were pretty easy to address. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. The article went online first very quickly after acceptance, which was nice. A UK guy handles my paper and give me a desk rejection after 3 months. Rejected on the basis of wrong comments. Excellent reports. Unbelievably slow given their 30-day referee guideline. Two reports give constructive comments and comments from the third report seem not understand the paper. Will never submit there again. The AE finally conceded that I was right and the referee was wrong - but decided to reject the paper anyway! 8 months after submission, an in-depth and articulated referee report with many comments. 2 weeks for 2 high quality ref reports. Probably I was a bit lucky the 2 referees liked the idea of teh paper sicne ti was a bit sort and basically asked me to do some mreo stuff. Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. This would be fine if desk-reject was motivated by "not a good fit" or such. 2 very good reports and one poor report. 3 reports: 2 of them really good, one mediocre. desk rejection in 2 weeks. Actually Journal of Economic Policy Reform. professional. Desk rejected after more than 6 months without any review or comments. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. Desh rejected in less than a week. Poor / no justification for decision. A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. Editor took issue with a methodological aspect of the paper and rejected. 1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. Terrible to treat junior people this way. It took the editor 3 months to write two paragraphs and reject. Referee process could be streamlined (take too long), but overall a good experience. But editor rejects. Editor claimed that referee is an expert in the field. had no economic relevance and was not worth being sent out to a referee. Accepted after revision within 1 month. Will probably not be using this journal again. Editor (Reis) worked hard on paper to make it better. Very disappointing experience. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). Seems as though they did not like the content and were looking for an excuse to reject. Editor rejected. Very unprofessional. E Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; F3 International Finance; F4 Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance; Banco de la Republica, the Colombian central bank, is interested in hiring a new or experienced Ph.D. economists to work as a researcher/economist.. Co editor rejected it. Two referee reports, one critical, one encouraging. Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. Very quick handling but refereeing quality just absurd. 1 extremely helpful report and 2 so so ones. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. Paper sent to an editor with completely different interests. Also gave a lengthy extension. Good reports that were specific and helpful. Welcome to the EconTrack Job Market Information Board, a service hosted by the AEA. 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. They never refunded my fee either. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. Despite being so tough, all comments were fair and refs wrote great reports that dramatically improved the paper. Detailed reports, 2 negative, 1 positive; nice letter from co-editor. submitted 4 years ago, got a response after nearly 2, resubmitted, now waiting more than a year for a result, editor not responsive to queries about the status, look elsewhere before soubmitting in the Economic Modelling, terrible experience, I am thinking about withdrawing. two referee reports. Repeated enquiries ("hey, its been a year now") have been followed by profuse apologies. Editor clearly read the paper. Nice words from Editor. Reasonably good experience; referee not overly experienced with topic. First response in less than 3 months. Then again, it only took a couple of weeks to get the rejection. Rejected by an Associate Editor, who actually read the paper, got the main idea clearly, and wrote a 2 full-page report with reasoning why this is not for JET and what journal outlets might be considered. Drill down into the main traffic drivers in each channel below. Two helpful reports. Mildly positive referees but reject nonetheless. the comment above was for another journals. Very good reports and editor was clear about what were most important points to improve in the revision. 3 Top 5 referees and editor said the paper was a good fit for ReStat, meh Amitabh Chandra rejected in one month with no infomation. 2nd round interview requests recently sent out which will result in second round of flyouts), Ederer (Toulouse), Beyhum (CREST/ENSAI), Wiseman (Berkeley), Zillessen (Oxford), Seibel (Zurich), De Vera (CEMFI), Laffitte (ULB), Leibniz-Zentrum fr Europische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH Mannheim, Lin William Cong @Cornell sexual harassment, Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Clare Balboni (MIT) Yong Cai (Northwestern), Joel Flynn (MIT), Benny Kleinman (Princeton), Joan Martinez (UC Berkeley), Anh Nguyen (MIT), Agathe Pernoud (Stanford), Roman Rivera (Columbia), Michael Rubens (UCLA), Regina Seibel (Zurich), Natalia Serna (Wisconsin), Christiane Szerman (Princeton), Milena Wittwer (Boston), Hannah Zillessen (Oxford), Althoff (Princeton), Balboni (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Szerman (Princeton), Serna (Wisconsin), Luxembourg Institue of Socio-Economic Research, Assistant Professor in Computational Social Science, Eisfeld (Toulouse), Tiew (Harvard), Woo (Rochester), Sharma (NDS), Sullivan (Yale), Ramos (Harvard), Majewska (Toulouse), Ebrahimi (UBC), Lesellier (Toulouse), Camara (Northwestern), Alba (Toronto), Conlon (Harvard), Bernhardt (Harvard), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), National University of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Aina(Zurich) Ba (UPenn) Bernhardt (Harvard) Cai (Northwestern) Carry(CREST) Chang (Yale) Flynn(MIT) Geddes (Northwestern) Moszkowski (Harvard) Nguyen(MIT) Pernoud(Stanford) Puri(MIT) Rivera(Columbia) Saxena (Harvard) Schuh(Stanford) Souchier(Stanford) Sung (Columbia) Tiew (Harvard) Vitali(UCL) Wiseman (Berkeley), Wong (Columbia), Teng (LUISS), Dimitri Pugachev (INSEAD), Andrey Kurbatov (INSEAD), Felix Wilke (SSE), Uettwiller (Imperial), Sam Piotrowski (Connecticut), Chuck Fang (Wharton), Thomas Grunthaler (Munster), Celine Fei (UNC), Denis Monakov (UCLA), Weiting Hu (Washignton-St. Louis), Valentin Schubert (SSE), Kurbatov, Wilke - declined, Schubert - declined, Piotrowski, Pugachev, Grunthaler - declined, Monakov, Piotrowski (Connecticut), Pugachev (INSEAD), Monakov (UCLA), Kurbatov (INSEAD), Nguyen (MIT), Flynn (MIT), Singh (MIT), Sullivan (Yale), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Sharma (MIT), Qiu (UPenn), Lanzani (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Vergara (UC Berkeley), Wiseman (UC Berkeley), Kroft (Toronto, AP) Kaur (Berkeley AP) Deshpande (Chicago AP) Ryan (Yale AP), Minni (LSE), Otero (UC Berkeley), Pernoud (Stanford), Crews (Chicago), Barone (UCLA), Mills (Princenton), Cai (NW), Jou (UCLA), Rittenhouse (UCSD) Mugnier (CREST) Acquatella (Harvard) Rivera (Columbia) D'Adamo (UCL) Zahra Diop (Oxford), Barone (UCLA), Mills (Princeton), Pellegrina (NYUAD AP), Mugnier (CREST), Beyhum (CREST AP), Deopa (AMSE), Kuang (Cornell), Gordon (Yale), Wang (EUI), Benmir (LSE & Paris Dauphine), Dahis (PUC-Rio AP), Lieber (Chicago), Tebbe (IIES), Ospital (UCLA), DAdamo (UCL), Peking University, Guanghua School of Management, Shen (UCLA), Qiu (Penn), Yang (Princeton), Assistant Professor in Environmental and Resource Economics, Flynn (MIT), Chen (Stanford GSB), Bleemer (Yale), Singh (MIT), Lanzani (MIT), Nguyen (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Sandomirsiy (Caltech), Wang (Stanford GSB), Carry (CREST), Conlon (Harvard), Vergara (Berkeley), Moscona (MIT), Souchier (Stanford), Bleemer (Yale), Carry (CREST), Chen (Stanford GSB), Seck (Harvard), Singh (MIT), Bernhard Dalheimer (Trade & Macroeconomics); Laura Montenovo (State & Local Finance); Guy Tchuente (Quantitative Methods in Spatial Analysis), Hannon (Cambridge), Austin (Oxford Said), Altmann (Oxford), Wangner (TSE), Rudov (Princeton), Uettwiller (Imperial), Leroutier (SSE), de Sousa (UC3M), Pieroni (UAB), Pugachev (INSEAD), Ashtari (UCL), Kim (UCSD), Casella (UPenn), Raja (LSE), Lieber (Chicago), Yang (Duke); see https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sef/events/seminars/, Assistant Professor of Economic Analysis and Policy, Moszkowski (Harvard), Wheeler (Berkeley), Cui (Wharton), Kytomaa (University of Texas at Austin), Sullivan (Yale), Seibel (Zurich), Fleitas (Leuven), Barnes (Berkeley), Lehr (Boston University) https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/AcademicAreas/Seminars, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Wiseman (UC Berkeley), Ferey (LMU), Morazzoni (UPF), Acquatella (Harvard/BU), Diop (Oxford), Eisfeld (TSE), Khalifa (AMSE), Gauthier (CREST), Bodere (NYU), Decker (Zurich), Wang (EUI), Wangner (TSE), Garg (Columbia), Miglino (UCL), Gordon (Yale), Michael Gilraine (NYU), Victor Aguiar (Western), International, public, labor, IO, development, Prasanthi Ramakrishnan (WUSTL), 02/15/2023, Delgado-Vega (UC3M), Castillo Quintana (NYU), Bergeron (USC AP), Slough (NYU, AP), Seck (Harvard), Teso (Northwestern, AP), Bernhardt (Harvard), No offer has been made as of March 3rd, your information is wrong, Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Pauline Carry (CREST), Benny Kleinman (Princeton), Kwok-Hao Lee (Princeton), Jacob Moscona (Harvard/MIT), Sagar Saxena (Harvard), Puri (MIT), Conlon (Harvard), Kleinman (Princeton), Bilal (Harvard AP), Seck (Harvard), Nguyen (MIT), Moscona (MIT), Crews (UChicago), Kleinman (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Moscona (MIT), Grindaker (BI Oslo), Terracciano (SFI), Huebner (UCLA), Taburet (LSE), Azzalini (IIES), Chen (SFI), Morazzoni (UPF), Gopalakrishna (EPFL), Charles (USC Marshall), Monteiro (Kellogg), ; see https://tinyurl.com/4rktwnf6, Minni (LSE), Guige (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Merilainen (ITAM), Carry (CREST), Khalifa (AMSE), Seibel (Zurich), Heath Milsom (Oxford), Carry (CREST); Wiseman (Berkeley); Casella (UPenn); Wu (Rochester); Silliman (Harvard); Morazzoni (UPF); Khalifa (AMSE); Babalievsky (Minnesota); Jha (UBC); Qiu (UPenn).