Good experience. Completely unacceptable. One good quality report suggesting minor revisions after 1 month. he clearly read the paper. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. Worst. Extremely valuable referee reports and advices from the editor. Comments were not really helpful. Report from the Editor. reports, the reports were all nice an constructive. Good reports. Useful letter from the editor. Editor efficient, but strange experience: Two referees were very favorable, but the third referee rejected by quoting a "flaw" which was in fact correct. Some comments from the editor, some are useful. Submission refund. 2 weeks for a desk rejection, editor actually read the paper and commented on it before deciding it is more suited to a field journal. 1 Ref suggested R&R, Galasso decided to reject, Two referees, one useful and helpful, the other clearly not an expert in the field. Overall, great experience despite the negative outcome, The WORST experience of my rather long life. Not sure what the editor(s) are doing at this journal but whatever it is, it is not quality overseeing and editing of papers. Fast decision after resubmit. Good process. Two very thin referee reports. One somewhat elaborated report. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. Reports were okay but in the end not that helpful. Go report in 2 days. In the opinion of the Editorial Board, this paper does not appear to be a good match (the othee papers are good match) for the International Journal of Industrial Organization and it is unlikely that this paper will ultimately be published in the IJIO. Reject and resubmit. All reports were useful and very demanding. In short, he left us only one option: not to resubmit. This was back when Bill Evans was editor. Paper got desk rejected. Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. One was a paragraph long and basically did a lit review. AE recommended other journals. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". Efficient and professional. 2 rejects, 1 R&R. Good referee report and very efficient editor. Editor sent it to peer review in one day. AER, JPE), but taste a factor. Quality Ref reports. 1 month to wait for a desk reject is too long. Two referee reports. Quick, very good feedback. Accepted after two rounds. Sadly, from the comments of the editor it was clear that she did not read the paper careully either, otherwise she would not have written the coments we got on the rejection letter. Good to be fast, but quality of feedback should be taken care of more at this journal. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. Editor read the paper too and added some short comments. Three weeks for a desk reject. He requested that we sent him a reminder after a week. Ass editor wrote some useful comments. After this thrid email, the paper moves up and it takes 11 weeks to get referee rejection (quality fo the two reports: poor, they wont improve my paper). Awfully slow. Desk rejected by Nigel Rice after almost 2 months, looking at the reason for rejecting the paper I had the feeling the editor did not read the paper. Suggested a field journal, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. 1 Referee provided useful comments that improved the paper. Research Interests : Digital Platforms & Society, Regulatory Uncertainty on Digital Platforms. I had a paper that was to be revised and the review was very positive. One short and one longer report. He suggested a more suitable outlet. An associate editor left some comments, which showed that they read at least some of the paper. Horrible experience. Same referee as for a previous submission to a high-ranked journal. Good handling by the editor. One referee for sure did not read the paper as pointed things which were actually in the paper. Very slow. 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. Excellent Experience. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. But I'm not in any club and not at an elite school (by choice). relatively fast, but referees totally uninformed of the literature. but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. He only mentioned that I failed to mention a lot of papers who were all by the same person. Two month for two detailed reports. Katz wrote his usual bs about my fascinating paper. Robert J. Barro desk rejected the paper in less than 24 hours. I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. Two reports of middling quality. Editor desk rejected after a couple of days due to lack of fit. Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. The third was R&R, and was more substantive. quick and clear communication with editor. Good referee reports. After 10 months waiting, I had a revise and resubmit decision. Kicker: next day got an email to renew my CEA membership to be able to keep submitting to CJE! Main editor Wilson takes care of it. Suggested Ecological Economics. One excellent and detailed (5pages) referee report which helped a lot in revising the paper to a much higher level. Great experience. Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. Desk rejection (standard email). They took the paper seriously. Desk reject within two days. Useless reports. Editor suggested top field, decided not to send to referrees due to "narrowness of topic." Referee reports OK. cannot complaint about reports but could have been faster, bad reports, of the type "i don't like it". 2 reviewers, 1 poor, 1 quite demanding and useful. Lengthy, in-depth reports. Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. Invited to submit for a special conference issue and then the editor desk rejected. Editor claimed to have two reports but gave me only one. After two interventions got 1 ridiculous report. The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. 7 months waiting for one poor referee report rejecting the paper for an unwarranted wording issue. Solid referee report and very quick response. But the other one was useless; it's like a collection of "minor comments.". Recommended. The rejection was fair but the referee report uninformative and boilerplate. You can even not see these wordings in Game of Thrones. This guy really needs to not be a referee if he can not do a thorough job in actually reading paper. Editor is a insecure joke. One referee report only. Otrok rejected within 7 days; considerable comments on the paper, though the three major points are either just wrong or addressed (one of them prominently) in the introduction of the paper. Besides, the editor's messages were rude. Eight months is a long wait though. New . Very good experience. RAND prefers IO topic. 3 detailed reports, and a summary from Hendren explaining the rejection. Such along time frame for such a poor assessment of the paper. Recently Announced. 4 months with the editor before being sent to referees. Extremely fast and helpful. In 1974, the Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) began printing a periodical, Job Openings for Economists (JOE) (Coles etal. Based on the large volume of submissions we receive bla bla, Unfathomably long time to first decision, referee comments impleid the paper was not read diligently, despite being just 4-5 pages. Not of broad interest. The secondary market "Scramble". Also suggested 3 very good field Journal. Editor said he appreciated the previous paper but seemed to reject this one (which is probably better) since it fits in with a similar literature. ), Vienna University of Economics and Business, Ceccarelli (Zurich/Maastricht), Pitkjrvi (Aalto), Assistant Professor in Labor, Migration, and Racial Capitalism, Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario), Gallant (Toronto), Sullivan (Yale), Cui (UPenn), Choi (Wisconsin-Madison), Kahou (UBC), Hentall-MacCuish (UCL), Babalievsky (minnesota), Moszkowski (Harvard), Hong (Wisconsin-Madison), Pan (UT Austin), McCrary (UPenn), Gutierrez (University of Chicago), Kwon (Cornell), Zillessen (Oxford), Ba (UPenn), Assistant, Advanced Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor of Economics, E0 -- General F3 -- International Finance F4 -- Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Fin. Absolutely pathetic handling by Horner. Something like that should not leave even an undergrad's desk. Rejected in 10 days. Journal of Economics and Finance Education. Generic letter. Desk rejected within two weeks. less than 2 weeks, recommended field journal. After the second round R&R, I only had to deal with the long reviewer. No reports provided, but editor made brief helpful comments. Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality. "Although interesting and competently executed, your study does not contain a sufficient theoretical or empirical innovation that would meet the very high standards of the EER." The co-editor was very efficient and apparently read the paper. We did. The report had a few good notes but none that really seemed to disqualify the paper from getting an R&R. Two weak reports. Flores, Jairo. The editor did point out a couple of interesting things. 2.5 are very positive. "Referee report" Biggest joke on Earth!! All other comments were mentioned and addressed in the paper. Desk reject after 30 hours, helpful comments from the editor. Over 8 weeks for a desk reject due to poor fit for journal. The AE's letter was useful, although no suggestion what to try next. Courteous notes from editor&co-editors when first response was delayed. Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. A waste of 250$ and time. Two referees were lukewarm but couldn't really point out too much that was wrong. Very efficient. Good experience. Good experience. Rejected on pretty poor grounds by an associate editor. Poor / no justification for decision. Baltagi desk rejected it in 2 days for being lack of novelty. That was disappointing. Paper: "Regulating the Sharing Economy: A Study of Unlawful Providers". They will not respond to editorial office inquiries or direct emails to the editors. Good editing process. One referee, although clearly in favour of publication, asked a good deal of revisions and it took us 4 motnhs to respond so most of the delay may have been our fault. They keep the submission fees, very efficient cash cow! No comment from the editor, 1 referee report by an idiot that just filled three pages with garbage to look like a better referee; other report was better but still not nearly as smart as QJE referees. The report must have been farmed out to some grad student who couldn't write. Claudia Rae Sahm (ne Foster) is an American economist, leading the Macroeconomic Research initiative of the Jain Family Institute. 2 constructive reports that improve the paper after 2 months. Shleifer was the editor. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. Professional editor. No additional comment from the editor. 1 R&R round. Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. (310) 206-1413. would? 1st round 2 1/2 months. Referee #1 wrote 1 sentence saying to submit it to AER. within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. What would be a fair solution to racial reconcilation issues in the USA? But the editor read the paper, and recommends Econometrica or JET or TE, Katz needed less time to skim the paper and offer a few good comments than I needed to write a one-sentence cover letter, It is a Finance paper. Two referee reviews. Fast. Although desk-rejected, I am very satisfied. Rejected by editor. We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. Helpful comments from referees and relatively fast. A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. 7 months for two very low quality reports. Second decision took 2.5 months. Reports were sound and improved the paper substantially. Who are these people?? Very efficient process, paper improved with referee comments. Contribution not new enough. Reports were semi thorough and okay, appreciated the fairly quick response, The referees raised concerns that we were not able to see before, and they were fair. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. I suspect whether Penny Goldberg is competent. Both referees were a bit too negative, but the reports were useful. Not easy - but straightforward. is ?so ?poor? Expected better, expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision. Second round was down to one ref and editor, third round was just editor. Editor was changed, asked for electronic resubmission and paper got rejected. A bit long but very helpful referee report. $65 down the drain! Will never submit unless the editor is changed to an economist, Referees did not put much efforts. However, I take as it was me not being able to pass the make the point I wanted. Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. First experience with this journal. Awful experience. Although the paper got accepted, the quality of the comments and the editor's comments were beyond laughable and actually really make me regret having it sent there but it is too late. I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know very quick. I was surprised these two letters resulted in the overall reject. possible that the editor reviewed it himself, but was a fairly straightforward accept, trivial revisions only. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. Liked the paper but contribution too small.