only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work.". Pretty helpful reports. The rejection came with a useless referee report. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. The editor did not even realized this and rejected. Handling editor still rejects for unclear reasons; very frustrating, but at least fairly timely. It was very smooth. Accepted after two rounds. Editor did not add any comments. Desk reject in a few hours with very impersonal email. Pages for jobs that begin in 2023: African & African American Studies 2022-2023 American Studies 2022-2023 Anthropology 2022-2023 Archaeology 2022-2023 Art History 2022 . Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. Long time to first response, given 3 months for a lengthy (single) report, but resubmitted and was accepted in like 3 hours. Long process but well worth it! The editor said some good words but also said he could not turn over the recommendation. Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. The transfer offer was helpful, though, since we did not have to pay a submission fee in order to send the paper to the other journal. Quick response. A very pleasant experience after 5 rounds of really bad reviews. No specific comment from the editor. Got accepted in three days. Good comments from the editor. (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. "not enough contribution". Total waste of time. Young is defined by the year of the first publication in any form. Comments just so-so. After two weeks we got a desk rejection with a very impersonal letter which made us think that the editor did not even read the intro. Almost one year later from submission, have no answer about my paper. Very useful referee reports. Tried to block publication in the second round as well but editor overrode. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. Pretty fast, 1 high quailty report. One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. 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. He had nothing but praise for it and offered good suggestions. The other report was *atrocious*. He wanted to give the paper a careful read and this was not possible immediately. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. One good referee report. Bad experience. 2 months with almost no answer, although the journal claims desk rejections are within days. 1 very good referee report, 1 OK, 1 pretty bad (revealing that the referee was clearly a non-economist). Pretty good experience. In anyway, you need to be very careful when responding with him, he can easily upset you with a rejection. reports, the reports were all nice an constructive. The new editors did a good job, Just a joke, 2 years of "under review" for nothing, two useful comments with one minor, another some work, Good comments, nice time management from the editor, efficient process. Two very helpful reports and encouraging letter from AE. Way too slow though. Two good referee reports though the review process is A bit slow. Two referee reports, each was half a page with very general comments about the lack of contribution to a general readership.
Abandoned Mansions In Orlando Florida,
Somerley Estate Fishing Syndicate,
How To Use Elavon Credit Card Machine,
Articles E