Bad experience. Comments were helpful. I regret to inform you that we do not consider this work to be of sufficient interest to our readership to warrant publication. Very useful reports, also doing some editing. Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago. Very constructive and useful for revisions. Amazing turnaround. Referee makes a factually inaccurate claim about previous research, and misinterprets interaction terms. My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. Controversial journal. Terrible referees. Pointed out the problems in the model and also admitted that its difficult to take care of all those problems. One short and one longer report. At this point, the editor asked us to review the abstract and the highlights. Would submit again. super slow for what they give. Referees did not bother to read the paper. Two reports, both harsh and recommended reject. Useless experience. Useful reports, good summary by editor. Still not a fan of this journal. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. The comments from the editor are also disappointing: his main suggestion is to send our 7,500 words paper to economics letters. The editor did put more weight on the negative one. Both reviews helpful - one very extensive. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. Revision accepted three hours after submission. Over the past six years, the department has placed a total of 128 graduates in academic, research, and government jobs. 2 very good reports and one poor report. The reviews were short and gave some good feedback. Good report. Absolutely pathetic handling by Horner. The initial resposen took too long (almost 4 moth to be sent our to referees). Great comments from the referees and editor. Will not consider it again. One very good review, two quite missed points. Much quicker response than suggestsed. Interesting but not a good fit. Basically useless, a waste of time. Total waste of time. But the decision was unfair. Great experience; precise and informed referee report; 1st round for major improvements, 2nd round pretty much converged to acceptance. Submitted July 2012, short empirical paper, still waiting for first response. paper proposed theory that is quite a substantial departure, so i appreciate the editor's willing to take it on. Do not submit to this journal. Withdrew paper after one year without signs of life. The new editor (Leeat Yariv) did a great job: She indeed read the paper and gave constructive comments. No reason given. Very efficient. very quick response and a useful referee report. Desk rejected in 8 days. 2 Weeks. Desk rejected in 2 days with a very short report "better fit for a finance 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. 2 good, one grumpy referee report. Extremely fast and helpful. 2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. Editor was a bit harsh. Will not consider again. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. We got referee rejection in 2.5 months: 2 referees, one favours RR, other rejects. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. Referees all showed an understanding of the paper and suggestions were useful. Editor decided to reject because he could only find one person to review. Sent my paper to another different journal. People need filters. Generic rejection. Pok Sang Lam rejected with few comments. Easy/doable revisions were asked. however,? Absolutely idiotic low-quality comments. I will never submit these bullshits to the editor who trusts me. AEA-Committee on the Job Market; Cawley, John, A Guide and Advice for Economists on the U. S. Junior Academic Job Market, 2018-19 edition Johannes Pfiefer maintains a catalog of job market tip pages and resources Resources for applying to government positions - L&S Career Site for Govt, Policy, International Affairs, writing a . The whole process was fast and streamlined. Bad Experience. Useful comments from knowledgeable reviewers. . The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal. Update to previous pending post. the journal is recovering. Desk-rejected in 3 days. Referee's only objection is flat out incorrect (i discussed report with colleagues in my field). One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. One great, very helpful report; one report that made an honest effort, but wasn't useful; one report that was one paragraph long and littered with spelling mistakes. The editor simply did not read the paper, since he presented no specific comment whatsoever about it, nor any recommendation. I waited six weeks for an inaccurate, one paragraph referee report? Sounded like the referees couldn't let go off other papers' methodologies. I have no clue who the referee wanted to impress, maybe the editor? This was after a 6 month wait and emails to the editor to follow up. Provided very useful comments. Helpful and competent editor who made clear what were the important points to address. Two of three referees did not read the paper. Accepted once I satisfied the referees. Excellent, useful comments by editor, but report was not helpful (as correctly noted by editor) and 5.5 months is a long time for one report. one of the reports was literaly 3 sentences. You can even not see these wordings in Game of Thrones. Recommended to aim for field journals. Not belonging to the club implies rejection. All three schools are exceptional but UChicago is particularly strong in Econ as well as other core subjects such as polisci and philosophy. They have not released it, sorry. All editors have lined up to publish their own papers (just see the forthcoming papers, 3 (three!!) Total waste of time. Fast and kind desk rejection. No comments from the unknown handling editor. Referee did not even sent a report after year and a half. The referee report is very good and even show a positive view to my paper. very professional; some referees had good points; should have spent more time polishing the paper before submitting. Most efficient experience with journals ever! Afwul experience. Very happy with the editorial process. Good helpful report asking for few corrections. 12 months and waiting. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. Editor is losing it. Full of informative/wrong comments. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. It seems like one of the reviewers do not even read my paper.The suggestions are nonsense. Receive desk rejection in 24 hours, editor read the paper and suggested to top field journal. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. But I'm not in any club and not at an elite school (by choice). Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. One of the referee reports was of alarmingly low quality. econjobrumors.com Traffic Analytics & Market Share | Similarweb They raised concerns that very literally addressed in section heads. Took about two weeks. A stronger editor could have handled the submission more efficiently also pointing out the weakness of the 2nd report. One is OK, other one is exteremly negative. One stern but very helpful referee report (five pages, competent and extremely detailed) in two weeks. Desk rejected by Katz within 24 hours. This was the worst referee report ever. They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. It took 2.5 months from initial submission to receiving three OK reviews. Mostly good comments, though not given much detail about main criticism. It is a very demanding R&R and we revise the paper a lot according to the suggestions, but it is worthwhile. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. The referee had a chip on their shoulder and the editor stepped in. One high quality report. Very quick process! Editorial process was efficient and fair. Editor agreed with them. 2 months for a generic desk rejection with no comment whatsoever.. but of course I am not in the club. Oh well, on to the next journal. Editor couldn't find referees, rejected and claimed two reports but only one sent. Probably the fastest journal I've had experience with. Good report with relevant comments which will be useful if publication of this study is pursued further. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. Most inefficient handling ever. Would send here again. Wilson inform me, on average, EI first decision is in 67 days, but my six months delay is not due to neglect (YEAH RIGHT! Suggested field journal. Decent reports; AE was a bit difficult, but ultimately helpful, Good reports and constructive feedback from AE; only 1 round of R&R. Please post listings by subject area. I resubmitted in January, and the paper was accepted with minor revisions in March. One good referree report, one positive but unhelpful, one negative and entirely useless. I waited fora long time only to be rejected with a response NOT A GOOD FIT. Submitted 4 February, rejected 29 December with 1 ok referee report that had been submitted in May. 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) Desk rejected after 7 weeks. It would be a positive experience if submission were free. The editor had good words about the paper but one ref didn't like it, so he rejected it. Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal. very rigorous comments. One of the critics was not applicable, but the major critic was quite helpful. AE also helpful. Good referee report and very efficient editor. solution? great experience. 2nd bad experience for me with this journal. low-quality referee reports. Our results didn't change. Bugaga! desk rejected. They will not respond to editorial office inquiries or direct emails to the editors. The report was very entensive and it required a lot of extra work but it was insightful as well (however, as always, we had to compromise in some things we were not fully convinced the referee was right). Horner is a disaster! My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. The associate editor however provided some useful comments which helped us improve the paper. I suspect either grad students or people outside of the field.