Will never submit again to ER. I had. Very impressed with comments received by the co-editor (Mark Armstrong), which were more substantive than the reviewers. Although QJE may be one of the oldest professional journal of economics published in the English language, it is also stale. Very quick route to getting useful reports. Did get a field journal suggestion and a refund of submission fees. A very detailed and fair review of our research, providing a balanced judgement of our achievements. Six months to respond. Rejected but with excellent reports. Ref #1 created new issues after I addressed his first round. Fair process. The referee report was more appropriate for R&R. 3 months for a desk rejection - no need to comment 4 months until desk reject. Editor handled the paper well. Useless experience. Some fair some unwarranted comments. One very low quality. The editor (Midrigan) collects three reports within 75 days. Big lie. I've been around the block a few times, published in top 5, and most of my articles get cited considerably more than average for the journal. Both referees read the paper, one of them even found some mistake in the proof. 6 weeks. Good experience overall, took more than 1 year to get one referee report. Worse experience ever. Editor did not catch these oversights. Fast turnaround and good comments. Overall, good experience with IREF. To summarize, this reviewer apparently thought he had better English than Shakespeare. Very mixed report quality. Very good editor recommending a field journal. quick decision by the editor. For three months the editor has not assigned referees! The editor had read the paper and provided guidance. Suggested different journals, very efficient. Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. good referee reports and relatively quick response, 1 Report after 8 months, Seemed like all points raised were easily answerable. Very long time for first response. A drawback is that it takes time. Ridiculous. Pretty good experience. Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. Initial response was quick. International Review of Financial Analysis. Three tough rounds which made the paper better. One of the referee reports was sloppy, showing inaccurate reading. Suggested a general interest journal. One very good report, the other average-to-good. 4 weeks for first response. Paper was accepted two days later. Referee reports were on the shrt side, but competent and polite, unfrtunately I doubt that the comments received will help improving the paper. Simply put, the reviewer does not believe in my results (simulations from calibrated macroeconomic model). Accepted after two rounds. Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". Great experience. Good referees but long process: 3 rounds /16 months, Very hard to respond but comments significantly improved the paper, Took a long time, but referee reports were very useful and significantly improved the paper. Editor read/scanned desk rejected paper. Desk rejection after 8 days. Just a one-paragraph report saying that the results are not "novel". One paragraph report when decision finally made. At first the handling editor informed us that the paper is sent for peer review. Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. very rigorous comments. A bit of wait but ok for econ standards. editor read the paper and decided to give it an r&r. Long wait. Cantillon is not a good editor. Two referee reports: one decent, one poor. candidates received letter saying search now closed- did anyone get the position? I don't disagree with decision, but too long for a relatively straight-forward empirical paper. Some useful comments from his friend. Paper sent to an editor with completely different interests. This journal has published MANY papers using these methods and policy makers regularly fund these methods. Brief comments from the editor. International Journal of Finance and Economics. Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. Not so much from the Associate Editor. While the ref rejection runied my day, I must conclude that the process was very efficient and the editors/refs earned every penny of the submission fee based on the feedback I received. 2 referees clearly read the paper and made some good and insightful comments. Good referee reports. Recommended a more specialized journal to try next. Very satisfied with the experience. Armstrong is so much better than Hermalin 6 months for the first R&R (2 referee reports plus a very detailed report from the editor), then 3 months for the 2nd R&R, then the paper was accepted. Zero constructive comments! In-depth, high quality referee reports. Editor agreed to R&R and suggested major changes but then didn't like the resulting paper. The editor picked a new (hostile) referee in the 2nd round. Comments were helpful. Very pleasant process. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. 20 months for this type of journal is super long. helpful comments; quick process; good experience. The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. Avoid at all cost. 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. There is only one report called review number 2! Submission to a special issue. Generic rejection. Referee comments generally useful and positive, but guest editor made desicsion to reject given preferences - fair enough really. Currently 20 months of waiting after first submission. editor said the paper had too much economics, The editor was very helpful to summarize what he thought should be done from 4 referee reports. Helpful comments from the editor. It seems to me that this was an easy way for the new Editor to reject the paper! Editor gave me chance to convince other referee. But editor rejects. Reports were split. Not too bad an experience. Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. Secodn editor waited almost 6 weeks after receiving the referee reports. Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper. Helpful comments from reviewer and editor. After three months, I received an email from the editor that he still hasn't received the referee report, so he assumed the referee didn't like the paper and therefore he rejects it. Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small). Editor clearly read the paper and claimed a referee did too. Lengthy, in-depth reports. Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). Recommended field journals. Would submit again. Desh rejected in less than a week. 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. 3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal. Pathetic Three reports, one good report the other two average. Long reports with some good comments. Very fast process, that is why I submitted to the journal. The comment by the editor in charge was helpful. 2 rounds after which referee recommended acceptance, but editor (Chakravorty) kept the paper for 7(!) Very good and helpful referee reports even though it is a rejection. That indicates he/she did not finish reading the paper. Very good experience: I wish all my rejected submissions were as fast and polite. Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. First report provided helpful insights, second - only half page of general comments. Waste of submission fee. Also one referee was clueless and did not read the paper. Fast response from the Editor. 1 reject and 1 R&R. Wouldn't submit here again. One report was very poor and full of bsh*t while the other was good. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. Strong referees. Quick, very good feedback. One very good report. Desk reject in one day. Received first reply after 7 weeks. Best experience in my long career (20+ years, 10+ top publications). Placement Administrator: Stephanie Burbank 650-725-6198 sburbank@stanford.edu. The editor said that referee is an expert in this field. (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint). After about 1 year of wait, the editor decided to reject the submission on the basis of 1 report (2 referees did not respond) that contained only 2-3 lines that already work was done on the topic (although appreciating the empirical analysis). 1 referree was critical, but offered great suggestions, other 2 were mediocre at best. Great experience! One reviewer was ok after the first R&R. Eight months is a long wait though. University of Sheffield. Outrageously poor process. Very good experience all around. Avoid this shitty journal. Quick-ish, 10 weeks. Seems as though they did not like the content and were looking for an excuse to reject. Got desk reject within 2 weeks. Journal: Utilities Policy (was not included as a journal to chose). Besides, the editor's messages were rude. The editor likes the idea, but things the method is not new, so recommended to a field journal. Fast, but absolutely useless reports. Terrible referee report referee made contradictory statements and econometric mistakes in report. Massive work. Editor suggested JIE. Bad to useless reports after an unacceptably long response time. Bad experience waiting for and ultimately receiving two relatively useless reviews for a comment/note (paper < 10 pages including title/abstract page, references, and tables). Quite annoyed at this journal - AE provided verbatim the referee rejection from another submission journal from three months prior. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement. very efficient. Said they would refund the submission fee, which is nice. Both referees really spent time on the paper and gave lots of suggestions.So did the editor. The Graduate School of Business at Columbia University is seeking to hire one or more tenure-track faculty members in the area of economics, including those in macroeconomics, open economy macroeconomics, or macroeconomic aspects of international trade, applied microeconomics, organizational economics, industrial organization, behavioral . Three referee reports. Much better process and better reviewers at JAERE. So-so experience. 14 days to desk reject, worthless generic email that said nothing on why it was rejected, merely that they "get lots of papers. Economic Theory Bulletin. I expected better from this journal. New . Fair points raised, although I would have preferred a R&R naturally. Good referee reports, very nice editor (Thomas Lange), International Journal of Production Economics. Ultimately, Editor rejected as felt it was not general purpose enough. One where the only material comment has a grammatical error that makes understanding it difficult? Report from ref1 and AE were very helpful. Horrible experience. I wonder how an editor can accept such low-quality output from the referees. Second report very good. Horrible associate editor, Arkolakis, rejected based on his personal views. Quick desk rejection. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. 2 quality ref reports + brief comments by editor. 2 rejects, 1 R&R. Excellent experience. KG was DE in finance. Mark Watson was the editor. EconJobRumors .com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is an internet forum for academic economists. Overall great experience. basic IV! Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. Would submit again. 1.5 weeks overall, Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics. Bad experience. (310) 206-1413. Vastly improved the paper but had to submit elsewhere. Ridiculous report by the most clueless referee who probably spend one hour only to read and review the paper altogether. None of the criticism was fatal and most was stylistic. Not sure whether to classify this as a desk or referee reject. They pointed out several issues of my paper, but they are either wrong or something that can be easily fixed. At least they were fast. Although I withdrew my article, editor sent me a rejection letter in a very rude manner. Desk rejected in a month. Great experience. The editor's comments show that he is totally uninformed about the literature. One obviously senior who doesn't care, openly says didn't read some parts. Good. Two weeks for a desk rejection. Editor was Imran Rasul, extremely professional and competent. Fast desk reject. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. Quick and professionsl process. Yep, it is. One very good report, one OK. One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. That was disappointing. The editor suggested to try a more mainstream Public Finance journal (I think may paper could have fit Public Choice but fair enough I will try another Public Finance journal). AER:Insights - Larry Samuelson, Very polite, slightly more than standard rejection letter, saying - not a good fit, although enjoyable. That mean 5 people read my paper? The model is not presented in a clear and intelligible way. Second round took 30 minutes, from submission to acceptance. Unprofessional letters, one full of typo and pushed to a no-way-working direction; the other simply was wrong on his/her main comment. Constructive and very detailed referee comments improved the paper. Two referee reports, one good and constructive and the other so-so. nice letter from editor, good and fair comments, 1 ref report good. Unanswered letters to editor by the 6th and 12th months after submission, only got reply after getting in touch to editorial office. I had much better experience in American Journal of Health Economics. Fast. Andrew deJong The Effect of Common Ownership on Pricing: Evidence from the Airline Industry . Not all theory papers are welcomed. Finance Job Rumors (489,486) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,772) Micro Job Rumors (15,235) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,012) China Job Market (103,527) Industry Rumors (40,348) A number of emails without reply since then. Reject because aparently would not fit in their journal. Overall, I was very pleased with the process. SIX MONTHS for a desk reject. Some valid points, but overall Kahn's criticism was thin. Editor had different opinion. 8 days to desk rejection. Very slow. Moffitt desk rejected, suggested a field journal. I sent an email after 5 months of submission and another after 6 months. However, I had issues with production, they uploaded the wrong version of my paper etc, and it looked like it wasn't even copy edited. Took a little over a month for the desk reject and no refunds. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. Very efficient process, very good comments from both the reviewers and the editor. 3 weeks to desk reject. Both found the topic and general question interesting and wanted us to think more carefully which question we ask and how we can answer it. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. It took 6 months a referee to look at the paper and decide that it does not make enough contribution to be published in this journal (very smart idea). Other than that, the process was good. EM suggested transfer to a different journal (which desk rejected after 2 hours). paper.? One is a R&R type, and the other referee said that he was not interested in the topic, nothing about the details of the paper. Rejected and no reason given. Not a good referee match given papers subject matter and therefore not very useful comments. Two decent referee reports. Excellent and rapid process, with clear comments and instructions from referees and editor. No BS, great experience! Reports were of moderate quality. Rejected a letter with one referee report but overall experience was good: about 6 weeks, comments sensible will try to implement. Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). Suggested field journal. Second round--took less than a month to get 2 detailed second reports from referees--impressive! Pleasant experience overall. I was surprised these two letters resulted in the overall reject. desk reject after 9 days - reason: editor feels not suitable for publication. Comments very helpful, editors took time to read the paper and were engaged throughout the process. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. The overall comments are OK. Actually, not as bad as many people think.Reports by referee and AE were of little help (they raised a few valid points), but this can happen at any other journal too. Lazy report. Good report. Welcome to the EconTrack Job Market Information Board, a service hosted by the AEA. Finance Job Rumors (489,474) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,762) Micro Job Rumors (15,233) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,523) Industry Rumors (40,348) Expedient. 2 reports and 2 rounds. One of them gave some good suggestions, but I disagree with some other points she made. One very constructive and positive report from economist, and one worst-I-ever-recieved report from a law scholar (maybe). Was rejected today by editor as only 1/2 referee reports submitted. The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. REHO is a scam, not a journal. Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. All excellent reports, and good suggestions from the co-editor about what to focus on and where to send next.