Basically, just a short e-mail saying that it cannot be accepted and it is more suited to some other types of Journals. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. Very pleasant process. After revise and resubmit, was rejected, Next year, similar article appeared in the journal authored by one of the associate editors. WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. 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. Editor rejected. Nice words from the editor. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Editor skimmed it at best and decided to reject without comments. Paper very close to editor's (Rogerson) field of interest. The editor is incredible. Applied Economics, Volume 52, Issue 60 (2020) Research Article . Wonderful experience overall. Pointed out the problems in the model and also admitted that its difficult to take care of all those problems. 1 referee report after 1 year, referee did not like the idea, editor Pok-sang Lam. reviewer knew an aspect of the literature and appeared to promote his own unpublished paper under review at the same journal. Referees rejected. Second decision took 2.5 months. Actually, it was overall positive. Overall good experience. the referee report adds nothing, and the editor rejects based on the meaningless report. The results just didn't fit their priors. Suggested to send to another journal! The AE finally conceded that I was right and the referee was wrong - but decided to reject the paper anyway! Editor agreed. Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). Applied Economics Letters is a peer-reviewed academic journal covering applied economics. Suggested AEJ:AE, RESTAT and top field. Pok Sang Lam rejected with few comments. I am just not part of the club. Extremely fast and thoughtful. Fair decision. Eight months is a long wait though. The new editor (Leeat Yariv) did a great job: She indeed read the paper and gave constructive comments. Very poor handling by editor. It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. I don’t care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. There are some, but there are a small minority of total papers in the journal. Very low quality report. very quick. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. Went from reject/resubmit to revise resubmit 1, revise resubmit 2, finally accepted. Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever. Considering withdrawing. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. The rejection came with a useless referee report. According to the editor, the paper has some merit, but is too specialized for EL. One of my best experiences. smooth in general. linking the paper with the "literature in the field", although we specifically say that our empirical application is novel to the field, so there are no comparable references. All comments seem easy to answer. The editor's comments are not informative. Referee told to write another paper instead. It took almost two month for a desk reject. is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? 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. So not sure why the editor would say this is "fixable", unless he is trying to say it sucks in a nice way. Complained. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. The paper was published in 2016, 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional, Decent referee reports that indeed improve the paper, One excellent report, one mediocre report. 10 months is too long to get back. Very helpful comment. The outcome (referee rejection) was acceptable but 5 month waiting is a large waste of time! Would choose again. submitted half a year ago. Ok, experience if it wouldnt be for the 11 months. Pleasant experience. Average turnaround time was rather long for AEJ standards. decent referee reports, overall good experience. Good experience. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. The referees loved it, very positive comments. Isnt it written that this journal focuses on mathematical reasoning instead of sticking to conventional setup? Reviews were not particularly helpful. Explore journal content Latest issue Articles in press All issues. Desk Reject took 4 months. Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). Super fast and clear feedback. Katz rejected in two hours with comments that seemed to be written for some other paper. Milner's an emeritus, what else does he have to do? Editor sat on completed reports for 3 months before making a decision. The referee report is very good and even show a positive view to my paper. It took 2.5 months from initial submission to receiving three OK reviews. They pretend to look like an international journal however thay only consider studies related to Japan. A second round of minor revision was requested. Desk reject for paper being too narrow for the audience of the journal. Reminded several times and after waiting 1 year got one referee report. Good experience in general, the editor recommended a field journal. Desk Reject, No Comment, Horrible Experience- THEY DO NOT REFUND the submission fee. Referee did not bother to read the paper. Fast but shallow. Also sent some emails to the editors but have no replies. Paper got desk rejected. Short straight-to-the point referee report with a few nice points, no bullc*ap. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. The response was I forgot to pay the submission fee. 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. Very useful reports, also doing some editing, Disappointing referee: a few useful comments, but mostly low-grade and somewhat hostile, Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper. Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. Useful reports. Very efficient process, better than expected. Useful letter from the editor. Not sure I'll ever submit something to RED again. At least turnaround time was fast: 14 days. One report was very positive, but the second one looked like it was written in ten minutes citing four papers of his own. KS rejected based on AE's brief report; AE comments somewhat useful but a tad unfair (main criticism applies to many papers publ. Third referee was slow and did not provide public report (he caused the delay). Mod's pls delete it. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. They pointed out several issues of my paper, but they are either wrong or something that can be easily fixed. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. Very Detailed construtive reports. In anyway, you need to be very careful when responding with him, he can easily upset you with a rejection. I love this journal. Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. did not refund the submission fee. It was crazy to wait that long for a dek rejection...was not happy at all...and there was not any comments or any reviews at all...basically waited for nothing for 5 months.. Editor desk rejected based on the identification strategy in the abstract, and clearly did not read the paper. We'll see. 1 useless report, 1 very helpful and 1 okay. The low-quality report won out... One referee said "take it", two said "we dislike coauthor, he published something similar in psych journal, do not take". for a desk reject with quite boring paragraphs from the editor along the lines why this is not using Angrist-Pischke methods... instantaneous rejection, however, without any comments. One very good report, 6 pages long. Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. Two decent referee reports. Report very critical but useful nonetheless. One useless report, but the other one is decent. Desk rejected as outside the scope of the journal. While harping on the issue, provided no insights as to how one can go about it. Referee claims no revisements were made after substantial revisements were made and detailed. Deputy Editor rejected the paper with insufficient contribution and a comment that doesn't make sense. Two referee reports were really good. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. Very good referee reports. At the end, I got two reports; one helpful, the other garbage. Only one referee report. a? Very quick response from Larry Katz. Could've desk-rejected instead of two useless referee reports. In doubt, Spier decided to reject the paper. 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. Pretty well run, can't complain. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Worst referee report ever. Polite letter from Bekaert. The submission and revision process was great and timely. 1 good, 1 okay and one bad review. reports show referees were serious. One very low quality and unfriendly report. 1 report suggesting to cite the Editor's work and speaking about things outside of the scope of the paper. An associate editor left some comments, which showed that they read at least some of the paper. No response for seven and a half months. desk reject by kahn in 48 hours. Ughhh...I will probably withdraw the submission. Desk reject within two weeks. Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. It seems that the referee did not read the paper just pinpointed assumptions he did not like to reject. Very good handling of the process. Entire process takes 1 month. Recommended a field journal, International Journal of Finance and Economics. Two competent reviewers, one slightly hostile, one friendly. 1 referee with small reasonable suggestions. One report was very constructive and helped improve the qualitiy of the paper. Did get a field journal suggestion and a refund of submission fees. Comments are constructive. Accepted as it is. No comments from Katz except go to field journal. One good referee, one ok, one terrible. Now Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. ... and time to publication, among others. long waiting time. ), Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. Waste of submission fee. Good experience overall. However, I take as it was me not being able to pass the make the point I wanted. Editor suggested top field, decided not to send to referrees due to "narrowness of topic." a positive experience, all in all. Average time between rounds of R&R (months), Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, National University of Singapore Business School, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, B.E. I stopped reading after that). Our paper went through four rounds and finally accepted after one year of its submission. Got a form letter. Perhaps we can call JABO an experimental journal now. Reviewer number two said the paper had no relevant contribution beyond those of a paper recently published in a top journal. Great experience. Editor rejected because paper topic (public finance) is not what tey are currently looking for. One stern but very helpful referee report (five pages, competent and extremely detailed) in two weeks. Quite fast luckily. The referee reports were crap (minor points without really saying anything about the research question, the methodology and the results of the paper). Good referee reports about key aspects of the research question framing and relevance. Review process was very efficient. One referee liked the paper but had doubts about the Y variable (kiss of death); other referee turned in a three page report but missed the point of the paper completely (while asking us to delete the explanation which would have answered his questions). one nasty and rudely written report with inaccuracies as well, one cited lack of fit. Very good reports, very effective handling of the editor, 5 months before the editor could take the time to look at the paper. The editor decided to reject, I am not in the club. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. To avoid. Got two most useless reports ever. Near-perfect experience. Would try again. Bad Experience. Extensive, constructive and mildly positive ref report. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. Also a very kind editorial letter. Editor probably didn't go beyond the abstract. Good comments. After more than 3 months of waiting, the paper was rejected with a one-sentence referee report. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports. Contribution not new enough relative to the existing literature. Decent referee reports, good turnaround time. Bad report, condescending. One useless report, and one very useful report. 211–420 (November 2017) Volume 20, Issue 1. pp. Positive feedback from the editor. BTW if one of the referee goes for RR, I would have to wait for a third referee report (lucky me?). 48hr desk rejection with a weird comment from the editor; You did not address related marketing literature! overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness, Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. Horner is a disaster! One excellent and positive report. One referee report after 11 months. Clueless editor thinks results are of narrow interest. Very good editor recommending a field journal. One very good referee report (I feel he has pubs in AER, JPE) and one useless report (he doesn't know anything about business economics), More than 16 weeks!! Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality. Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Second was uninformative. Extremely disappointed. frustrating, because paper not assigned to the editor who works in my field, editor obviously read the paper (indicated by reference to appendix figure in the letter); nice and helpful comments. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. ", referee reports were very thorough and demonstrated expertise, rejections were fair - just wish I would have gotten these reviewers the first time I submitted the paper. One good report, one completely useless with only superficial, general remarks. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. Quick-ish, 10 weeks. Nice rejection letter. Journal always replied to me saying it is delayed and I finally withdrew after 2 years with no response. Lowest quality referee reports ever received. The structure of the game, the policy and strategy spaces and other concepts are not introduced with sufficient clarity. Terrible editor. It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. What a terrible journal. Two good reports. I knew I shot too high. Not much to complain about. Rejected because topic did not fit the journal. Here is what I found for empirical development papers – which are not so common in Economics Letters. Stay away! Glad that they didn't waste my time. Editor claimed that referee is an expert in the field. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. Great experience. Reviewers made many incorrect comments and almost no useful comments, editor straight up said didn't read the paper, but reviewers are negative so reject. Way too slow though. Poor justification, pure taste by Debraj Ray. The latex formatting at the end was the most painful part. A journal to avoid. Fast process, but very poor reviewer report. WE got 3 tough and long referee reports. 2 rejects, 1 R&R. Editor agreed with them. Katz wrote his usual bs about my fascinating paper. desk rejection because it is not a good fit and i am asked to send it to an economic journal --- while i mainly discussed with a very nice sociologist when writing this paper. Avoid that journal. He wanted to give the paper a careful read and this was not possible immediately. good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. The other reviewer I suspect of being a graduate student with not so good comments. A drawback is that it takes time. 3 weeks for a desk reject. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals.