Decent referee reports. 14 months from submission to publication online. Invites for 2nd round zoom interviews sent today. the other report is empty (rejection). 1 month desk reject. An associate editor left some comments, which showed that they read at least some of the paper. Very good reports that help us to improve the paper a lot. The contribution of the paper as it stands to be insu cient for publication in The Econometrics Journal. Useful reports. Waste of money. Candidate Job Market Roster. Strongly recommend submitting there. reports. Very good experience. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. Extensive reviews though. The editor was quick and helpful. Editor did not add any comments. Much better process and better reviewers at JAERE. 2 weeks for desk reject. Helpful reports in general. happy with outcome. After 6 months I got an extremely low quality report; looked like the reviewer had no idea about the paper or even the field in general. Professional editor. Good experiences --- fast (1 month for both the first and R&R round), good reports, editor is also very helpful. Incredibly insulting rejection that made it clear the referee had not read past the first 2 pages of the paper. Not worth the time wasted. Ljunquist is pretty passive. Under two month for two reports. The reviewer recommended accept after seeing the revision. Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. Rather short reports for waiting 6 months. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. Useful reports and fast turnaround. The review process yielded good referee reports in round 1. AE also helpful. A nice formated letter saying that the topic was not interesting enough for the audience of the Journal. A form-letter rejection from Katz. Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. May have a good chance at a higher ranked outlet but if considered speed and diversification then it was a good and correct decision to submit here. Fast desk reject on subjective grounds. That's right. 3 Reports. Rejected based on 1 helpful referee report. Really good experience, good comments and moved quickly through the process. He, however, had the balls to apologize for the delay. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. Although the other referee was positive, editor rejected it. Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. Extremely efficient process with good comments by referees. Five weeks, submission to rejection. Finance Job Rumors (489,006) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,503) Micro Job Rumors (15,223) Macro Job Rumors (9,792) European Job Market (100,940) China Job Market (103,450) Industry Rumors (40,309) The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. Paper sent to an editor with completely different interests. Suggested top field (JPubE in our case). Not to say, the shortcoming is an accepted norm till one finds a better way. Such along time frame for such a poor assessment of the paper. Good experience. Quite upsetting. Great experience in general! Poor / no justification for decision. However, it would probably help to read some of Joanna Lahey's work to get a sense of the state-of-art methods with these audit studies." Minor comments from editor who appears to have at least gotten the gist of the paper. One good referee report. Well-run journal. Tough, but fair referees. First round took 2 months. Polite, even quite positive reports. Not for the faint-hearted. 1 month + 10 days for desk rejection. Editor is a little slow. One good referree report, one positive but unhelpful, one negative and entirely useless. Had 2 tough but fair r&r rounds with 2 reviewers and 1 with the editor. UghhhI will probably withdraw the submission, It is the worst experience I have ever had with a journal. Hostile report stating "I do not belive your assumptions", editor ignored it. Pointed out the problems in the model and also admitted that its difficult to take care of all those problems. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. Form letter from the editor. Two weeks to desk reject. Hollifield copy-pasted unsubstantiated claims in rejection letter apparently without even having a look on the paper. 2 (ridiculous) referee reports, poor handling by the editor. Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject. One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. Reject because aparently would not fit in their journal. STAY AWAY from this journal! Good communication and seemed very efficient. Desk reject took four days. Kicker: next day got an email to renew my CEA membership to be able to keep submitting to CJE! Some not so fair. All good, minor additions were suggested. Overall good experience. Useful letter from the editor. Great outcome. European Review of Agricultural Economics. Editor provided useful feedback and a subsequent version of the manuscript was sent out for peer review. Great experience. Lorentzen (BI Norway), Lieber (Chicago), Lyngse (Copenhagen), Ststad (PSE), Osun (Maryland), Majewska (Toulouse), Nord (EUI), Sverud (Copenhagen), Zillessen (Oxford), Carry (CREST), Airaudo (Carlos III), See https://www.economics.ku.dk/Calendar/seminars/, Shunsuke Tsuda (Brown), Catherine van der List (UBC), Victor Pouliquen (Oxford), Evgeny Yakovlev (NES), Andreas Ziegler (Amsterdam), Valerio Pieroni (UAB), Thomas Brzustowski (LSE), Assistant/Associate/Full Professor-Ag and Applied Economics, University of Georgia (Terry College of Business), Thereze (Princeton); Lee (Princeton); Geddes (Northwestern); Vitali (UCL); Crews (Chicago); Cai (Northwestern); Kang (Stanford GSB); Bodere (NYU), Bodere (NYU), Cai (Northwestern), Thereze (Princeton), AP of Economics at Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan Ross School of Business, Serna (Wisconsin), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Qiu (Penn), Geddes (Northwestern), Altmann (Oxford), Kleinman (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Kahou (UBC) Kim (Penn) Holz (Northwestern) Holz (Chicago Harris) Wang (Rochester) Arbour (Toronto) Lee (Chicago Harris) Wasser (Cornell) Robinson (UCSB), Development, Political Econ, Applied Micro, Lecturer (Assistant Professor), Senior Lecturer and/or Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Yes- some girl accepted offer then took another job, Aina (Zurich), Bertazzini (Oxford), pires (berkeley), oliveira (berkeley), schief (brown), uccioli (MIT), sartre (brown), Sartre (Brown), Bertazzini (Oxford), Uccioli (MIT), Skoda (Zurich), De Vera (CEMFI), Sui (Rochester), Aina (Zurich), Ghersengorin (PSE), Hancart (UCL), de Carvalho (UBC), Gavan (UPF), Milson (Oxford), Schneider (UZH), Vattuone (Warwick), Herstad (Chicago), von Carnap (IIES), Lorentzen (BI), Altmann (Oxford); See https://tinyurl.com/mryuahhm, Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford), Sung (Columbia), Lanteri (Duke), Hui (LSE), Nord (EUI), Cruces (UC3M), Williams (Yale), Marto (Penn), Trouvain (Michigan), Sturm (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton); Lanzani (MIT); Cai (Northwestern);Guerreiro (Northwestern); Nord (EUI); Ederer (TSE); Starck (Brown); Bellue (Mannheim); Diop (Oxford); Banchio (Stanford GSB); Pernoud (Stanford); Saxena (Harvard); Souchier (Stanford); Vitali (UCL); Sharma; Serna (Wisconsin), Wheeler (UC Berkeley), Bagga (UT Austin), Gutierrez (Chicago), Szerman (Princeton), Crews (Chicago), Nord (EUI), Peng (Penn), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), University of Rochester (Simon Business School), Arkhangelsky (CEMFI AP), Bai (Michigan AP), Pouliot (Chicago Harris AP), Chang (Yale), Cai (Northwestern), https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/index.php/index/research/seminars?dateRange=past&seriesId=0, Sarah Robinson (UC Santa Barbara), Justin Wiltshire (UC Berkeley), Katherine Rittenhouse (UC San Diego), Christopher Mills (Princeton), Eduardo Medina Cortina (UIUC), Arielle Bernhardt (Harvard), Jenya Kahn-Lang (Berkeley), Katherine Riitenhouse (UCSD), Gina Li (Stanford), Stephanie Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Flynn (MIT), Wang (Stanford), Lu (Stanford), Leombroni (Stanford), Seth (LBS), Singla (LBS), Ptashkina (UPF) Sileo (Georgetown) Gutirrez (Chicago) Chang (Yale) Shen (UCLA) Kohlhepp (UCLA) Cai (Northwestern) Morazzoni (UPF) Wong (Columbia) Carry (CREST) Nimier-David (CREST) Chen (Stanford GSB) Bodr (NYU) Tintelnot (Chicago AP) Beaman (Northwestern AP) Lamadon (Chicago AP) Kang (CMU AP), Risk and Insurance at Wisconsin School of Business, Rao (UCSD), Wiseman (Berkeley ARE), Rexer (Wharton), Giaccobasso (UCLA), Yucheng Yang (Princeton), Sofonias Korsaye (SFI), Matteo Leombroni (Stanford), Yes, 2/05/2023 according to EconTrack (who? Editor rejected on the basis of being too narrow. they should have desk rejected, AE told me: you should not be surprised that IER typically does not appreciate this kind of work.. they wasted my time. It took a long time to hear back from the first round. Total waste of time. I expected better from this journal. Worst experience ever. The acceptance came quickly after the second round of review. Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. The decision is quite fair and briefly justified. Thorough ref reports with good comments. a? Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. 84 W Santa Clara Street, Suite 770, San Jose, CA 95113. Aina (Zurich), Korovkin (CERGE-EI / UCLA), Conte (U Bologna / UAB), Stockler (UAB), Health Economics Labor and Demographic Economics Urban, Rural, Regional, Transportation Economics In, Fan (Stanford), Lepper (Pitt), Mahmood (OSU), Rehbeck (Ohio State AP), Vidart (UConn AP), Liu (Michigan AP), Yoder (Georgia AP), Mathevet (EUI AP), Cox (Yale postdoc), Choi (Princeton), Craig (Yale postdoc), applied microeconomics, econometrics, and/or macroeconomics, Yang (USC) Vidart (UConn AP) Qiu (Penn) Mills (Princeton) Mugnier (CREST), Borusyak (UCL), Ramos (Harvard), Ostriker (MIT), Sharma (MIT), Vitali (UCL), Crews (Chicago), Druckenmiller (RFF), University of California, San Diego (UCSD), Seck (Harvard), Mills (Princeton), Alfonsi (Berkeley ARE), Rivera (Columbia), Idoux (MIT/Wharton AP), Moscona (MIT), Souchier (Stanford), Chen (Stanford GSB), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Vitali (UCL), Ederer (Toulouse), Lanzani (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Miller (Wharton), Vasudevan (Yale SOM), Nimier-David (ENSAE), Pernoud (Stanford), Kwon (HBS), Fleckenstein (Stern), Hampole (Kellogg), Wang (Stanford GSB), Tang (Harvard), Coston (CMU), Singh (MIT), Yong Cai (Northwestern), Yuling Yan (Princeton), Mou (Berkeley), Jahani (Berkeley), Chang (Yale), Moran (Columbia), Uehara (Cornell), Althoff (Princeton), Bodere (NYU), Carry (ENSAE), Conlon (Harvard), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Kohlhepp (UCLA), Minni (LSE), Moscona (MIT), Nguyen (MIT), Otero (UC Berkeley), Pernoud (Stanford), Roth (Uni of Cologne), Thereze (Princeton), Vergara (UC Berkeley), Sturm (MIT), Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Souchier (Stanford). I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience. I appreciate the quick desk reject. Good reports. All reports are positive. Seems safe to ignore the submission guideline: "In tables, please report standard errors in parentheses but do not use *s to report significance levels.". Would try again. I withdraw my submission after 15 months of submission and no answer from the editor. Not a good experience. Some fair comments. Initially submitted on 2 Aug, we got the rejection six month later. Waste of time, Ok process, but referees either did not read the paper carefully or were inexpert in the field, Referee does not understand the purpose of the paper, clearly not a specialist of the field ; published elsewhere. Pleasant experience. I am not in a club, whatever it is.). I contacted the journal about that but no response. Needless to say, the error is not as such, Bad reports (full of mistakes, pointed out to AE but didn't work), Assigned to an associate editor and got desk reject. The first response took more than I expected, but the referee's comment was very constructive. Two reports were reasonable and one report was very low quality. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. No referee reports, just got notified I was accepted. Good experience. The second editor rejected it. 1 was more positive and ref. The other reviewer raised some minor issues. The second was more critical. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. The editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions. Two decent referee reports. Desk rejected after 23 hours. Good referee report + some comments from AE. Sent it to EL on Christmas Eve, got the desk reject from Gomez right after Christmas on 26th for not enough contributions. Horrible experience. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in Portland, O. It was crazy to wait that long for a dek rejectionwas not happy at alland there was not any comments or any reviews at allbasically waited for nothing for 5 months.. 3 weeks for a desk reject. Paper was never sent to the reviewers as per the email. Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. Very clear about what was needed for revision and the 2nd round was only minor comments. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. Ridicolous report: 3 lines where the referee asked to address "geopolitical" issues. My paper was on Covid and one ref was clearly not an economist, suggesting medical/health indicators, references and logic; impossible to satify I think with economics arguments. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. Referees all showed an understanding of the paper and suggestions were useful. Suggested Ecological Economics. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process, They looked better from outside. Reports were ok, but total process took way too long. The Editor was quite polite. R&R after 3-4 months. Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper. Desk rejected by editor, who said that editor in chief rejects ~40% and he rejects about the same. one of the reports was literaly 3 sentences. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. The paper would be a good fit. 20 Feb 2023. 2 weeks to desk reject. A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. Most inefficient handling ever. Referee was constructive and provided helpful comments. 3 reports: 2 of them really good, one mediocre. one referee suggested revision, one rejection, editor followed the rejection; good reports, suggestions improved the paper, Two revisions but rejected by editor, fast and fair comments, One accept with min comments, one said ok but many points/revisions, one reject, editor said too large a revision without guarantee for accept, 1 report recommended to publish, 1 pointed out minor points. Quick response within three days. After another three months, the paper was reject on the basis of a presumed 2nd referee report, only with a few lines, that says the paper is "well structured, well written, and deploys sound econometric methodology", but "does not add value to the existing literature". Helpful and competent editor who made clear what were the important points to address. Portuguese Economic Journal* Great process. Two good referee reports, useful comments, theory; 2 decent referee reports and 1 suggestive letter from an editor. Three mediocre reports. Great experience. Special issue editor started to referee himself. **** this journal. It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. She said only 1 (very short but with no objections) of 3 of the referees responded and was not able to find new referees. Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. Great experience! Desk rejected after 3 days. The structure of the game, the policy and strategy spaces and other concepts are not introduced with sufficient clarity. Excellent and clear communication with editors. A lot of small nit-picky criticism and some factually wrong statements about paper. The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress. Three referee reports. would? Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and about two months in the second round. We have done that, after several weeks, no answer. Health economics, Applied . rejected after 2 rounds of revisions. The peer review process was fast. The other referee was very positive but the editor followed the negative report. The submission and revision process was great and timely. Easy/doable revisions were asked. Turns out that means he's following the Schwert model: don't read the paper, regurgitate the reviewer's comments in the decision letter. Beyond the scope of the journal. Generic rejection. Accepted 1 1/2 weeks after revision was submitted. Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. The editor likes the idea, but things the method is not new, so recommended to a field journal. Editorial board apparently liked the paper, but found it not sufficiently related to population economics. Desk rejected in a week. Apparently the assigned coeditor left and paper got stuck. never submit to this journal again. Two reports with mixed view. Editor was great (helpful, insightful, truthful). main message was that paper is a poor fit. The paper was with the journal for five months and we got a rejection with only one referee report with 5 bullet points (two of which were about typos). Good reports. Fair points by referees. Emailed twice to ask about status and no decency of even replying. Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. Fast Resposne in 10 week. Very quick route to getting useful reports. Rogerson very quickly pointed out the paper did not merit publication. Suggested changes and several other outlets. That thing (s)he claimed was wrong was in fact trivially correct, but the referee was completely clueless. Editor reject due to relevance. The referees made good points. Very fast decisions. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). Rejection reason shows Meghir did not read the paper, bad editor dull comments. 2.5 months to get a RR. No surprising, but referee report was sloppy and incorrect. Good experience overall. Editor was kind and offered some useful remarks. Both referees are bad at econometrics. Bruno Biais was AE. Going into the ninth month with no response. Very kind letter from the editor. See Alice Wu's paper for details. Would not bother again. One absolutely incompetent referee. Fast desk reject (Ciccone), after few days. 6 months after that paper online. Sent email to the corresponding editor after 6 months review, but no response. Overall, bad experience. 7 weeks. Both referees really spent time on the paper and gave lots of suggestions.So did the editor. Referee only comments on the first half of the paper. The other report was *atrocious*. Extremely helpful comments that significantly improved the paper in the end. Not much to complain about. Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). Co-editor felt nothing "wrong" with paper but does not made enough of a contribution to warrant publication. editor obviously read the paper (indicated by reference to appendix figure in the letter); nice and helpful comments. Skip Navigation. 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful). not worth the time and effort. my paper was rejected but great comments on how this paper can be improved are made. Brief comments from the editor. editor did not read the paper carefully, waste of US$250. Very long time to receive the first decision (major revision). Fast desk reject (~2 weeks) with a couple of brief, helpful comments from the editor. Good experience. Clearly a club journal. After 7 months at the journal, I get one extremely low quality referee report. "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". Dest rejected in three days. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. And he did not find the topic interesting. Two years later still waiting for referee reports. ", Two reports - one thorough and one probably by a grad student, One associate editor recommended rejection and no other comments/suggestions, but one referee provided very useful comments and s/he seems to be positive about the paper. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. Reports were very positive, it took us 12 weeks to resubmit. Claudia Sahm - Wikipedia Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. Desk reject - research objectives and empirical methods questioned, paper referred to field journal. After "awaiting referee selection" for 4 months, I sent a query and got one referee report. I don't know what to add. Fast, but absolutely useless reports. I suspect a tight club. Turnaround times are reasonable though. Fair referee reports, but I had to wait pretty long. One nasty and not helpful review, but two others were very constructive. Some nice words from the editor. wanted to reject from the outset. Good reports. For the fee would have been nice if the Editor had written a paragraph about why they rejected. Both have suggestions (one extensive, one less so). The literature review was complete! Second report little use. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Analytic number theorists: your opinion on TK's claimed disproof of the RH ? Rather slow desk reject. Eight weeks to get two very high-quality reports. Long wait. Fast and fair. Very quick and extremely professional. I want my money back ! 3 months for conference decision and 2 months of journal decision. Engineering at HPE The editor (George Weebly) made inconsistent statements that did not match with the statments in the paper or from the refrees.The referees made good comments. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. RR was done with care and useful overall. Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. Editor rejected after R&R without providing any referee report (note: journal name has now changed to International Journal of Health Economics and Management, International Journal of Industrial Organization. Very slow and the reason for rejection was not good enough. Search by field of study. The referee report is very good and even show a positive view to my paper. The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. No comments from the editor though. Learn More About Katia. Unfortunately, this is my usual experience with EER. Referees obviously did not read the paper. Second ref put thought into it but was of a heterodox stripe that I'm not. Two useful reports. Resubmitted in 2 days, accepted after resubmission in 10 days. Search by name. Terrible experience. Manuscript number assigned at 10AM, rejected by 7PM. Seven months at least the reports where good. EJM - Econ Job Market Clear and concise communication with insightful and prfound comments by editor and reviewers. Claudia Rae Sahm (ne Foster) is an American economist, leading the Macroeconomic Research initiative of the Jain Family Institute. I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know very quick. True, no time wasted, just the $125 submission fee. Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). Would submit again. Would submit here again. Thought already in literature. Only one referee report. Desk reject in 4 hours. Stay away! However, my paper is abotu China and Institutions, two things strongly encouragede according to their mission statement. Very efficient; referee reports are of pretty high quality. More importantly, the analysis is flawed by a number of major shortcomings. Comments from Larry very helpful. Almost zero substantive comments on the technical part and not surprising that it was sloppy handling given that it was Pop-Eliches who was the co-editor. after more than 3 months still "with editor". Efficient process and fast decision. Fair report but not anything that couldn't be corrected in R&R. Good quality reports for a low-ranked journal, though. Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud. Good experience overall. The letter from the editor suggests that he/she did not have a firm grasp of the paper. Quick turnaround upon revision. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. Ref reports were okay. Editor followed the second report. 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. Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. no submission fee but fast response and fair referee report. Good ref reports. This journal is a joke. No response to requests. Awful experience! Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. The model is not presented in a clear and intelligible way. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. Very slow process. editor very helpful. Form letter. All excellent reports, and good suggestions from the co-editor about what to focus on and where to send next. 6 months to first response, then a two sentence ref report, one sentence of which was clarified extremely quickly and one that entailed a ton of extra work. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. 2 rejects, 1 R&R. Awful experience. No comments whatsoever, in an un-signed email with 2 generic sentences, Desk rejected after one week with kind words from co-editor and recommended field journal, Poor justification, pure taste by Debraj Ray. [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors is only lightly moderated and preserves posters' anonymity. Very helpful referee reports. Editor read the paper and outlined clear and fair reasons for rejection. One report was very positive, but the second one looked like it was written in ten minutes citing four papers of his own. The senior is useless as s/he was not happy that the paper is against an established theory. Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. Meaningless reviews. Editor rejected. She was formerly director of macroeconomic policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, and a Section Chief at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, where she worked in various capacities from 2007 to 2019. Quick turnaround, helpful comments, will submit again, Desk rejected in less than a week. One of them was very detailed. Rejected in 10 days with no comments. Department of Geography. Poor targeting on my part. First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. Less than insightful comments by an editor clearly hastily read the paper. A Doctorate level degree in Economics or related fields, or expect to receive it in 2023 with strong background in empirical analysis and policy-focused research. writing? However, once the paper was assigned to referees, the speed was normal. Nothing happened. 3 detailed reports, and a summary from Hendren explaining the rejection. In the second round, the comments are from only one referee, they are easy so revise. 1 Month and 10 days for first decision is too long. The referee told us to delete the literature review. The rejection was fine but took too long for a desk reject. Incredible experience: referee said he/she didn't like the paper. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. At least they gave decent feedback. But referees are very negative. The other was much more careful. Less than 24 hours.Rogert J. Barro was the editor. Flores, Jairo. 1 really excellent, positive report. Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. I haven't received the first response yet. Helpful and doable things. Duration: 2 years. 150$ is quite a lot of money. Took 7 months to give 1 referee report with just 5 lines. Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!). I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. Deadline: 2023-03-06. I thought that I deserved more respect. Very fast; useful, reasonably positive report despite rejection. Note that since the editor(Batten) is handling many different journals at the same time, you should expect relatively slow turnaround time. Reasonable comments from the referee, extremely fast and efficient process. Useful comments from the editor (Stefan Nagel). Recommended a more specialized journal to try next. I sent off the revision less than 24 hours after the R&R. a 2 paragraph referee report that was not particularly helpful - at least the turnaround time was fast - might as well have been a desk rejection, Very low quality reports. Fairly helpful referee report. Overall smooth process. One very low quality and unfriendly report. Kind and informed letter from editor. OK report. Editor didn't read the paper, based her decision on reports. Editor mentioned additional points and suggested a field journal as an alternative.
The Lambert Family Tragedy, Articles E