| Journal | Result | First Response | Avg time between R&R | No. Referee Reports | Notes | Year Submitted | Added |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abstracts of Working Papers in Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | Journal: Utilities Policy (was not included as a journal to chose). One quite short referee report. One of the critics was not applicable, but the major critic was quite helpful. | 2020 | 05/31/21 |
| Administration and Society | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 12/12/14 | |
| Administration and Society | Accepted | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2010 | 12/12/14 | |
| Administration and Society | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 1 | hjty | 2013 | 12/09/14 |
| Administration and Society | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. Poor targeting on my part. | 2016 | 06/26/16 |
| Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2015 | 11/09/16 | |
| Agricultural Economics | Accepted | 8 | 4 | 4 | Good referees but long process: 3 rounds /16 months | 2015 | 09/12/16 |
| Agricultural Economics | Accepted | 8 | 3 | 4 | Very hard to respond but comments significantly improved the paper | 2015 | 01/31/17 |
| Agricultural Economics | Accepted | 5 | 4 | 2 | Took a long time, but referee reports were very useful and significantly improved the paper | 2020 | 12/10/21 |
| Agricultural Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Two very poor referee reports. Both referees are bad at econometrics. | 2018 | 03/03/21 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Pending | 4 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 4 months :) | 2019 | 09/28/19 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Accepted | 0 | 1 | 2 | Awesome experience. 2 weeks for 2 high quality ref reports. Editor then said with a quick/thorough response and no need to go back to refs. Good strong editors. | 2012 | 04/18/13 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 2 | Amazing experience. High quality, detailed referee reports, which substantially improved the paper. Editor provided detailed advice throughout the entire revision process. Average turnaround time was rather long for AEJ standards. Overall, I was very pleased with the process. Strong and professional editors! | 2016 | 04/06/18 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Accepted | 3 | 12 | 2 | Good first round reports, took a while to respond to all the comments. Second round 4 months before acceptance. Good experience. | 2016 | 04/22/18 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Accepted | 7 | 2 | 1 | 2016 | 01/15/19 | |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Editor sends paper just to his/her peers with predefined ideas. Top scholars if it comes to RCTs, but no broaded view. Clearly a club journal. | 2015 | 12/20/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | 1 | 2 | Bad to useless reports after a longish delay. One referee openly mentioned s/he doesnt like the method used in the paper. The other clearly did not understand what is going on and wrote some junk. Clearly, this journal is the main outlet for randomized trial papers and not much else. | 2014 | 11/26/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 12/21/12 | |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Poor quality single report. Clearly done day before deadline. Editor did seem to have read the paper, possibly in more detail than the referee who comments several thing that was included in paper. Expected a bit better. | 2015 | 06/22/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | It's quick, but the reports are really bad and unhelpful. Didn't make the paper better at all. | 2015 | 07/01/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Helpful and fair referee reports. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. Would submit again. | 2017 | 08/03/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | some useful comments, but clear that the referee didn't spend a lot of time on the paper, nor take much effort to follow bits of it that weren't conventional. | 2015 | 05/20/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/30/12 | |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 3 | Unbelievably fast. 3 reasonable reports. | 2021 | 04/14/21 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | It's quick, but the reports are really bad and unhelpful. Didn't make the paper better at all. | 2015 | 07/01/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Very good referee reports - largely positive but requiring some modifications, deleting one section. Editor also read the paper and took the call - explained that the paper was better suited at a good field journal given referee assessments of contribution to literature. Process seemed very fair. | 2013 | 12/04/13 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Not very helpful reports. One was a paragraph long and basically did a lit review. The other did not understand the basic identification strategy in the paper. Editor like the paper but their hands were tied, I guess. | 2017 | 11/19/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Helpful and fair referee reports. Would submit again. | 2018 | 06/01/18 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Less than a month for two strong referee reports on a non-experimental paper: useful suggestions and some parts of the paper were obviously not clear enough, although no intractable issues so rejection was disappointing. Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. Fair decision. | 2015 | 10/05/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 3 constructive and useful reports. Good experience. | 2019 | 12/06/19 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | ~5 weeks. Okay referee reports. Editor read the paper too and added some short comments. One ref decided to the opportunity to pimp their own working paper. | 2014 | 09/20/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Nice words from Editor. Ref reports quite useful | 2014 | 03/12/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | About 14 weeks from submission to referee reject. One positive review, one negative, editor took the side of the negative. | 2021 | 08/15/21 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 6 weeks to get 3 referee reports. All excellent reports, and good suggestions from the co-editor about what to focus on and where to send next. Great experience. | 2020 | 11/17/20 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | 2 | 0 | Used reports from AER. Still took 3 months. Pulled a weak R&R. I then spent 2+ months revising, only to be rejected (after another two months), no new reports, but detailed comments from the editor. To be fair, some of the editors comments were sharp. He just wanted me to write a different paper. Still, I lost 7 months overall. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. | 2016 | 11/04/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Received 2 very nice and 1 okay-ish report. Editor's letter mentioned a 2-1 split in favor of rejection, so she rejected. Unhappy with the outcome of course, but pleased with the process and the handling | 2018 | 09/10/18 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 6 weeks | 2013 | 09/23/13 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | 2 weeks, ok ref report | 2012 | 12/24/12 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 2 | Two reports of middling quality. Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one). At least the turnaround was quick. | 2012 | 04/28/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Very efficient process. Two excellent referee reports. Editor read the paper, added some comments of her own. | 2011 | 04/28/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Bad experience overall, although the reports came quickly. The reports were largely useless. One referee for sure did not read the paper as pointed things which were actually in the paper. The other referee was of low quality. 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. | 2014 | 08/17/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | 6 weeks | 2015 | 08/10/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Useless reports. Poor / no justification for decision. Expected better from an AEJ | 2016 | 07/03/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Sad...but at least it is very quick | 2017 | 07/06/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | good reports | 2012 | 06/13/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 01/02/13 | |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected in 24 hrs, no reason given. No evidence that the editor read even the abstract. But then again it was my fault, I didn't run an experiment! | 2014 | 07/14/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 3 days. Not general interest enough. | 2020 | 10/16/20 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Got desk reject within 2 weeks. Rejection based on fit. Apparent that editor read the paper. | 2015 | 05/21/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected within two weeks. Fit justification | 2017 | 08/17/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick, polite desk rejection from Deming. I wish we had drawn a different editor. Otherwise fine. | 2019 | 04/04/20 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Almost 4 weeks for desk rejection. Editor provided some friendly comments. | 2021 | 10/13/21 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Within a week with no justification. No indication that the editor had even read the paper. | 2018 | 01/14/19 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk reject, but editor basically provided a referee report | 2015 | 08/16/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk reject - generic letter from editor who did not like the topic. Felt somewhat subjective | 2018 | 01/02/19 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 3 weeks to desk reject. Some warm words from the editor. He wanted to give the paper a careful read and this was not possible immediately. He, however, had the balls to apologize for the delay. Submission fee refund. Would submit again. | 2017 | 12/20/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | A joke | 2018 | 10/19/18 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject with generic letter at 3 weeks. Generic letter from editor. | 2016 | 01/02/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in one week | 2014 | 03/03/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in two weeks. The editor read the paper carefully to make the decision. | 2021 | 09/05/21 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 12/23/13 | |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | great and very useful comments by editor | 2017 | 08/19/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 day desk rejection by editor. Standard comments, paper's topic just not good enough | 2019 | 01/14/20 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very helpful comments from editor | 2015 | 06/09/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 08/02/13 | |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Editor rejected on the basis of being too narrow. | 2014 | 07/17/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/22/12 | |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Within 2 day. | 2013 | 07/11/13 |
| American Economic Journal: Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after about 10 days | 2013 | 07/07/13 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Accepted | 3 | 5 | 2 | Very good and useful referee reports. The editor had read the paper and provided guidance. On the downside, the time between each of the two rounds of R&R was longish. | 2014 | 12/07/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Accepted | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Excellent referee reports, with useful input from the editor (Auerbach) regarding how to handle them. Wonderful experience overall. | 2011 | 04/30/13 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Rejected with 2 reviews on the grounds of insufficient contribution to literature. 3rd review was pending. One recommended reject, the other R&R. Some good comments from reviewers, but all focused on marginal issues. Not much insight from the editor, whose concerns were rather vague. | 2016 | 07/13/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2016 | 03/08/17 | |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Fast and clean. Helpful reports in general. A bit too narrow-minded in my opinion. Editor seemed to have liked the paper despite ref rejection. | 2016 | 07/11/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 02/18/14 | |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Fair decision. Mostly good comments, though not given much detail about main criticism. | 2015 | 01/26/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2020 | 12/12/20 | |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Weak reports with many assertaions that were simply untrue. Yet editor made some good comments. | 2013 | 03/11/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | In-depth, high quality referee reports. Tone of the reports harsher than at better journals. | 2012 | 04/29/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Took rather long, ok reports | 2018 | 03/06/19 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 3 reports: 2 of them really good, one mediocre. | 2018 | 07/25/18 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | About 10 weeks from submission to referee reject. One positive review, one negative, referee took the side of the negative. | 2017 | 08/06/18 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 12/25/12 | |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Very good reports. Not general interest enough. | 2015 | 04/05/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Two straightforward R&R recommendations from referees. Editor rejected based on own concerns. | 2014 | 07/17/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | very very good reports | 2012 | 01/01/13 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very fast. Nice letter. Other outlet probably more suitable. | 2017 | 06/10/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 3 reports, very quick. (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint). | 2016 | 08/19/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | 2 fairly helpful reports. One furstrating assertion by the editor. Seems safe to ignore the submission guideline: "In tables, please report standard errors in parentheses but do not use *s to report significance levels." | 2019 | 05/03/20 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Fast, but two very low quality reports | 2018 | 12/21/18 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Quick response. Reports detailed and helpful. | 2017 | 06/02/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Very nice comments from the Editor | 2017 | 09/30/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Good enough experience and fair. Suggested field journal. | 2015 | 01/19/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 3 reports, very quick. (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint). | 2016 | 08/19/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fair point from editor. | 2019 | 03/08/20 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2 week desk reject. Formulaic letter. At least the fee is refunded. | 2017 | 06/02/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | editor obviously read the paper (indicated by reference to appendix figure in the letter); nice and helpful comments | 2014 | 11/11/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast. Editor read the paper and deskrejected in less than a week. | 2016 | 10/19/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 6 hours. Recommended field journal, and it was in fact eventually published in the top field journal. | 2012 | 07/07/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Excellent comments from MN, good experience for a desk rejection. | 2019 | 04/04/20 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected within 6 hours. | 2012 | 12/21/12 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. I am just not part of the club. The second time I was told that my results were "not surprising". | 2018 | 10/31/18 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; | 2020 | 11/01/20 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. The editor did give us advice to split the paper in two, although he didn't really provide a justification for rejection. (As we've seen, courtesy of Raj Chetty and Diamond/Mirrlees, sometimes they split your paper and accept.) | 2016 | 06/06/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very quick response. Editor obviously read over the paper and gave a couple of helpful comments. | 2012 | 01/08/13 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Clear editor had read the paper, helpful comments | 2015 | 08/11/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast. Nice letter from co-editor. | 2016 | 05/29/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 10 days for desk reject. Comments were not very helpful. | 2020 | 04/29/20 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 06/03/14 | |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | several days. frustrating, because paper not assigned to the editor who works in my field | 2015 | 09/27/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 12/23/13 | |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Pending | 9 | N/A | 2 | 2019 | 12/19/19 | |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Good experience. The editor, Richard Rogerson, is very careful and handles the paper in a timely manner. | 2014 | 12/18/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Good reports. Excellent editorial work, with very clear road-map of how to address referee concerns. | 2017 | 01/09/19 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 3 | Great experience. Referees and editor reports were incredibly useful | 2012 | 02/21/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Useful reports, good summary by editor. Would submit again. | 2017 | 11/30/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2 referee reports: 1 very detailed recommending revisions; other useless. wanted to reject from the outset. editor(s) provided good comments too. but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. good process overall | 2018 | 07/14/18 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 03/26/13 | |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Good experience. Fast and serious journal. Fair points by referees | 2014 | 04/04/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Good experience. 1 extremely helpful report and 2 so so ones. | 2015 | 04/08/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 2011 | 12/22/12 | |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2 referee reports: 1 very detailed recommending revisions; other useless. wanted to reject from the outset. editor(s) provided good comments too. but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. good process overall | 2018 | 07/14/18 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. | 2020 | 05/31/21 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Paper very close to editor's (Rogerson) field of interest. One rubbish review from a referee who had no idea what the paper was about. The other review was somewhat on point in its criticism, though I can'r give him/her the credit as the shortcoming was itself mentioned in the paper. While harping on the issue, provided no insights as to how one can go about it. Not to say, the shortcoming is an accepted norm till one finds a better way. Very, very disappointed! | 2016 | 04/03/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Good report. Rejected for a good reason. | 2015 | 02/04/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Editor (Rogerson) makes some encouraging comments but cannot hide the fact that the referees were not really that enthusiastic about the paper, even if they couldn't find much to criticize. Would submit again. | 2014 | 10/09/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Very good experience. Good feedback from AE too. | 2012 | 01/21/13 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Shitty ref report. He only mentioned that I failed to mention a lot of papers who were all by the same person | 2012 | 07/13/13 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Useful reports. | 2016 | 03/16/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Good experience. The editor (Midrigan) collects three reports within 75 days. Two are helpful, one is less useful. Would submit again. | 2019 | 08/13/19 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Really bad experience (Midrigan was the editor). Just one very low quality report. It just decided not to believe the empirical analysis. Also, did not bother to understand the theoretical contribution. Disappointed | 2018 | 03/22/18 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Overall experience is good. The editor read the paper carefully and made helpful comments. One report very useful, and the other two not that much. | 2014 | 10/24/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | editor very helpful. 1 good report and 1 not so good. | 2014 | 10/04/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Extremely fast and thoughtful. It is a pity it was rejected, but I appreciate the quick response. | 2016 | 03/23/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Rejected in 10 days with no comments. When pressed, editor said we weren't doing the same things as everyone else. | 2021 | 07/29/21 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 12/22/12 | |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject within same day | 2020 | 06/17/20 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rogerson very quickly pointed out the paper did not merit publication. Very good experience: I wish all my rejected submissions were as fast and polite. | 2017 | 05/31/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | >1 month for desk reject | 2021 | 08/05/21 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2020 | 12/12/20 | |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk reject in 2.5 hrs? complimentary with some comments but said focus was too narrow | 2021 | 05/07/21 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Good feedback from eitor, very quick desk reject | 2015 | 03/28/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 08/02/13 | |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Pending | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/24/12 | |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 2 | Second round--took less than a month to get 2 detailed second reports from referees--impressive! | 2016 | 07/28/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Pending | 4 | N/A | 3 | Good reports and good work by Asker. | 2015 | 03/01/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 1 | It was quick and efficient. | 2013 | 06/22/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Accepted | 6 | 5 | 2 | Very good comments from both the reviewers and editors. | 2010 | 02/28/14 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 1 | Good report + Editor's detailed comments | 2012 | 10/02/13 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | 7 months and two really bad reports | 2019 | 06/18/20 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Ref Reject | 18 | N/A | 0 | Horner is a disaster! One report after 18 months. | 2018 | 01/13/20 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! | 2015 | 04/13/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. | 2016 | 06/17/16 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2010 | 10/02/13 | |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Good reports. | 2012 | 06/07/13 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2015 | 04/19/16 | |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 01/01/13 | |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 2021 | 12/13/21 | |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | One ref gave R&R; the other two were rejections for not being of sufficient interest for AEJM. Editor agreed with them. Useful reports. | 2017 | 11/18/17 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 01/10/13 | |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 3 | Very Slow | 2018 | 09/25/19 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | One useless report, but the other one is decent. | 2015 | 06/14/15 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 1 | 9 months for 1 2-page referee report. Absolutely pathetic handling by Horner. Will never submit again | 2018 | 03/12/19 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | be viewed as too specific. suggest some field journals | 2018 | 08/03/18 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Although desk-rejected, I am very satisfied. The new editor (Leeat Yariv) did a great job: She indeed read the paper and gave constructive comments. Will submit again. | 2020 | 06/08/20 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | ~6 weeks for DR; suggested top fields | 2018 | 04/20/18 |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 07/22/16 | |
| American Economic Journal: Microeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | No connection= rejection | 2015 | 04/13/15 |
| American Economic Review | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Submitted more than 2 months, still shown the status as "under ADM" | 2012 | 01/22/13 |
| American Economic Review | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 01/12/15 | |
| American Economic Review | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 03/21/17 | |
| American Economic Review | Pending | 4 | N/A | 3 | high quality reports | 2014 | 12/14/14 |
| American Economic Review | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | very quick answer. Advise field journal | 2016 | 11/30/16 |
| American Economic Review | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 4 | Clear suggestions with R&R decision from Hillary Hoynes. Good process. Got accepted after 2nd round. | 2013 | 09/26/15 |
| American Economic Review | Accepted | 0 | N/A | 0 | Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. Even though the outcome is positive, I blame the editor for not selecting competent enough referees to begin with. | 2016 | 10/31/18 |
| American Economic Review | Accepted | 1 | 3 | 3 | Expected approval. | 2019 | 08/15/19 |
| American Economic Review | Accepted | 6 | 6 | 2 | 2010 | 12/22/12 | |
| American Economic Review | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 3 | My paper on the "The Impact of MTV's 16 and Pregnant on Teen Childbearing" was quickly accepted due to its relevance and awesome nature. | 2014 | 12/03/15 |
| American Economic Review | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2012 | 05/08/13 | |
| American Economic Review | Accepted | 5 | 10 | 3 | 5 months first RR, 5 months second RR, 2 weeks final acceptance | 2010 | 12/21/12 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 6 weeks for two reasonable referee reports. Rejection reason: not general interest enough. Would try again. | 2016 | 08/29/16 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/27/12 | |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 11/01/13 | |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | 4 | 3 | All referee reports were gave entirely stylistic comments with no real grounds for rejection. Kinda pissed. | 2014 | 10/16/14 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 4 | 8 months of wait, for nothing | 2014 | 02/16/15 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 05/15/13 | |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | 2013 | 07/05/13 | |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 4 | Fair rejection. Contribution not new enough. Very good reports | 2016 | 03/04/17 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 3 | One referee said "take it", two said "we dislike coauthor, he published something similar in psych journal, do not take". | 2013 | 09/19/13 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Good comments, well rejected | 2013 | 04/06/13 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | A fair process. | 2011 | 04/02/14 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. | 2017 | 06/03/18 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Shitty reports; one ref only wrote 2 sentences. | 2009 | 01/29/13 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 4 | Unfair letter from Emi N. Great letters from four referees and three of them are very positive! | 2019 | 04/07/20 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Was a longshot. Getting a reference to AEJ Applied was worth it. | 2014 | 03/31/15 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Good reports. One report is esp helpful. | 2017 | 11/13/17 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Crappy reports. Unhelpful, rambling. Great turnaround I guess? | 2019 | 09/27/19 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2016 | 02/28/18 | |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Good referees | 2012 | 03/18/13 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. | 2017 | 06/02/18 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | No substantive comments from any of the three referees. Just that paper did not meet the bar. Also one referee was clueless and did not read the paper. | 2018 | 12/17/18 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 5 | Most of the refs did not read the paper, or only skimmed it. Many, many factual errors about the paper. Refs gave some okay minor comments but no big, subtantive critiques. The results just didn't fit their priors. | 2017 | 07/10/17 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Contribution not new enough relative to the existing literature. | 2015 | 06/11/16 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 4 | Lengthy, in-depth reports. One positive, three negative. Not much to complain about. | 2015 | 12/02/15 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | One decent report. Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever. | 2014 | 07/24/14 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 3 | 3 polite reports say it is interesting but too simple for aer | 2013 | 01/15/14 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 4 | Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. Editor didn't believe our identification. | 2017 | 08/19/17 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/21/12 | |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2014 | 08/19/15 | |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | 2010 | 08/02/13 | |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Two sloppy reports, one useful. Good experience in general, the editor recommended a field journal. | 2016 | 05/07/16 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | A short piece from an expert in the field. Slightly more informative than a desk rejection. Appreciate the quick turnaround. | 2017 | 01/03/18 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 0 | N/A | 3 | Good experience overall, only took 2 weeks, two short reports, one very useful. | 2017 | 07/10/17 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | Fair experience. 3 reports. Referees ok, not great. | 2014 | 10/08/15 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 5 | More than 5 reports. | 2015 | 12/01/15 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | only one report (quite helpful). The second one was a "consultation by telephone" but no feedback to us. Editor was really nice. Reason: "not enough general interest" | 2018 | 12/06/18 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 3 | nothing special. referees said "nice but not great" | 2013 | 02/20/14 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | One very good, detailed, and positive report. The other negative and low-quality. The low-quality report won out... | 2014 | 07/01/15 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | 2016 | 01/30/17 | |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Reject with two solid reports. Comments are helpful | 2021 | 07/30/21 |
| American Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 01/09/13 | |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 12/21/12 | |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after 1 month. The response email was generic and brief, with no actual content or substance. Conveyed no sense at all that anyone even looked at the paper. Received the standard 50% fee refund (wow, so useful) | 2019 | 10/01/19 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Not general interest. | 2015 | 03/07/16 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Generic rejection letter. | 2016 | 10/17/16 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2015 | 04/26/16 | |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk Reject after 10 days | 2021 | 01/20/21 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 10 days | 2017 | 01/12/18 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Generic desk reject w/o further information | 2021 | 08/19/21 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | AER Insights: Form letter desk reject. | 2019 | 06/14/19 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Quick return, nice words. | 2015 | 06/03/15 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after about 1 month. No comments whatsoever, in an un-signed email with 2 generic sentences | 2019 | 05/11/20 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Sample size concerns. | 2018 | 01/14/19 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after one week with kind words from co-editor and recommended field journal | 2015 | 08/21/15 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Poor justification, pure taste by Debraj Ray | 2016 | 02/07/17 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 2 | 2 | 1 | Desk rejected, but after consultation with a referee who provided a mini-report. Report was fair and helpful and editor's letter was kind. | 2018 | 05/14/19 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in | 2015 | 04/07/15 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 week desk reject | 2018 | 12/17/18 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 04/19/16 | |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Kind words by editor | 2012 | 12/24/12 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected within a week. The editor read the paper and provided useful advice on how to improve it. Suggested top field journal. | 2019 | 06/07/19 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | one month desk reject. | 2012 | 02/28/14 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Moffitt desk rejected, suggested a field journal. | 2010 | 01/11/13 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | About a week to desk reject | 2015 | 08/01/15 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 12/21/12 | |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Not enough contribution | 2014 | 05/12/14 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast reject | 2015 | 10/04/15 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 12/09/17 | |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Uninformative decision | 2018 | 09/23/18 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Kind words by editor, though weird reasoning | 2012 | 04/04/13 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 12/21/12 | |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Recommended field journal (JIE ) | 2017 | 09/10/17 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 Week (Desk Reject) | 2018 | 08/27/18 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | nearly a month for an anonymous desk rejection | 2020 | 01/11/22 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | AER:Insights. Very quick and very fair. Excellent desk reject by Larry S. | 2020 | 03/05/20 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Recommended a field journal by the editor. | 2013 | 06/11/13 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 06/19/13 | |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 8 days to desk rejection. Suggested a field journal | 2012 | 07/13/13 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Generic letter saying the paper was not fit to general interest journal. No letter from an Associate Editor, so no idea about who rejected the paper. At least turnaround time was fast: 14 days. | 2017 | 08/17/17 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | less than 2 weeks, recommended field journal | 2015 | 07/15/15 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days. | 2016 | 09/15/16 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast desk reject but zero useful information. Editor identity unknown. | 2021 | 12/28/21 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Took about two weeks. Editor appeared to have at least glanced at the paper. | 2009 | 01/29/13 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2 weeks to receive desk rejection. Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. Not signed by any specific editor, so not even sure who handled the manuscript. | 2020 | 03/03/21 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2 weeks. Nice letter from the editor. | 2016 | 05/24/16 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/25/12 | |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Under 2 weeks for a desk reject. Editor was very kind. Suggested a more specialized journal. Said they would refund the submission fee, which is nice. | 2015 | 11/02/15 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 14 days, just long enough to get hopes up, with boilerplate "not general interest." | 2021 | 02/04/21 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after two weeks. Generic letter. Disappointing as paper got some fine ref reports in another top journal and revised. | 2018 | 07/13/18 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | AER Insights: Generic rejection without any thought or suggestion. Doesn't seem it was read beyond the title. Thanks Amy! | 2018 | 05/15/18 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Did get a field journal suggestion and a refund of submission fees. | 2016 | 08/03/16 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Not sure whether it should be called "desk rejection" as the editor said he asked a friend who is an expert in the field to review my paper rather than sending it to referees. Some useful comments from his friend. | 2018 | 11/06/19 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 2 weeks, editor recommended sending the paper to a field journal. Glad that they didn't waste my time. | 2017 | 11/15/17 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. I suspect whether Penny Goldberg is competent. | 2015 | 10/03/15 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | AER:Insights - Larry Samuelson, Very polite, slightly more than standard rejection letter, saying - not a good fit, although enjoyable. Clearly he had read the paper. Please add AERi to the combo box.... | 2020 | 03/03/20 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | not even a nice word :'( | 2012 | 01/29/13 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 3 weeks. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". Both read, understood and gave a few comments. Sounds fair. | 2016 | 09/19/16 |
| American Economic Review | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Took almost 2 months to generically desk reject w/o any information. | 2021 | 02/07/22 |
| American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | One good referee report. The other referee has no idea what I am doing. | 2012 | 10/02/13 |
| American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2014 | 07/06/16 | |
| American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Quick reviews, reasonable comments. | 2012 | 02/28/14 |
| American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Referees were obviously a bad choice for this topic. Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half. | 2016 | 01/17/17 |
| American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Three high quality referee reports. Fair decision and process | 2018 | 08/29/18 |
| American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2 mildly positive reviews, editor shot it down | 2014 | 08/07/14 |
| American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Split decision. Two reports were reasonable and one report was very low quality. | 2016 | 08/17/16 |
| American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 08/02/13 | |
| American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 2 | Rejected after revision, very good comments in initial round. Ref #1 created new issues after I addressed his first round. | 2013 | 09/03/14 |
| American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Just one referee report. Referee says R&R, but editor decides to reject outright. Useless comments. Not surprised to hear that the impact of the journal is going down. | 2013 | 06/21/14 |
| American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | one good, one bad | 2012 | 08/02/13 |
| American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Very good and helpful referee reports even though it is a rejection. | 2016 | 03/09/17 |
| American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | One very good review, two quite missed points. Some helpful comments. | 2012 | 04/25/13 |
| American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject - research objectives and empirical methods questioned, paper referred to field journal | 2021 | 06/20/21 |
| American Journal of Health Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Very good comments from both reviewers and the editor, Frank Sloan. Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. Strongly recommend this journal for health economists! | 2014 | 03/12/15 |
| American Journal of Health Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. Highly recommended. | 2016 | 06/17/16 |
| American Journal of Health Economics | Accepted | 1 | 3 | 2 | Highly efficient process | 2016 | 01/14/18 |
| American Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Referees mixed. Low quality comments from Frank Sloan. | 2016 | 05/17/17 |
| American Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Says 6 week turnaround but took about 4 months. Decent referee reports. | 2018 | 04/07/19 |
| American Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 7 | 7 | 2 | Worst. Journal. Ever. One extremely hostile report written by someone who is clearly trying to delay my results from coming out and another one paragraph report recommending minor revisions. The editor did not read the paper and just sided with the hostile referee. This journal is a joke. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. | 2017 | 12/09/17 |
| American Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Horrible reports. It seems like one of the reviewers do not even read my paper.The suggestions are nonsense. | 2018 | 05/17/18 |
| American Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Failed to notify me of rejection. Found out it was rejected only by contacting them. | 2016 | 12/14/16 |
| American Law and Economics Review | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Very pleasant experience. The editor was quick and helpful. | 2014 | 12/31/16 |
| American Law and Economics Review | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Worst experience of my life. One referee does not follow simple math, immediately assumes the model is wrong and the editor takes his side. Same referee takes about half an hour to conclude the math is wrong, yet takes 5 months to submit his report. The other referee recommended revision. | 2014 | 04/23/15 |
| American Law and Economics Review | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | A very long time. But two useful reports | 2019 | 07/02/20 |
| American Law and Economics Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Horrible experience. The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. Will never submit here. | 2015 | 10/31/15 |
| American Political Science Review | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2005 | 08/02/13 | |
| American Political Science Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Rejected for not have a theoretical contribution. | 2017 | 11/19/17 |
| Annales d'Economie et de Statistique | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | Excellent reports | 2012 | 09/24/13 |
| Annales d'Economie et de Statistique | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2006 | 08/03/13 | |
| Annales d'Economie et de Statistique | Accepted | 0 | N/A | 2 | 2006 | 08/03/13 | |
| Annals of Finance | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 1 | Smooth process. | 2017 | 11/07/17 |
| Annals of Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | one good, one bad | 2012 | 01/14/13 |
| Annals of Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | 2 | 2 | Rejected but with excellent reports. The journal is higher than B | 2015 | 08/01/17 |
| Annals of Finance | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | rejected for small contribution | 2016 | 08/01/17 |
| Annals of Regional Science | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Hard to believe. Inquired about my submission after 7 months, got answer that revision time "totally depends on the reviewers". Withdrew paper after one year without signs of life. Was contacted again after another two years promising that my paper was to be considered, and say yes please do. Lastly withdrew for good after another six months. all in all four years without ever seeing a referee report. | 2014 | 08/20/18 |
| Annals of Regional Science | Accepted | 5 | 5 | 2 | Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. Kohlhase) | 2013 | 01/06/16 |
| Annals of Regional Science | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2016 | 02/01/17 | |
| Annals of Regional Science | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2016 | 01/26/18 | |
| Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy | Accepted | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2013 | 10/09/13 | |
| Applied Economics | Pending | 10 | N/A | 0 | After 10 months, my manuscript was still listed as "awaiting referee assignment", and no one at the journal would respond to my e-mails about the paper, so I withdrew it. Complete waste of 10 months and $200. Journal is basically a scam now. | 2013 | 07/15/14 |
| Applied Economics | Pending | 12 | N/A | 1 | R&R after almost one year...too slow...poor report...but with a good result... | 2017 | 04/03/18 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2014 | 10/16/14 | |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 1 | Great experience. A good referee report and very efficient editor. | 2013 | 07/16/14 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 months to R&R, revisions accepted by editor about a week after re-submission. Good experience | 2017 | 02/19/18 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Fast. | 2020 | 09/26/20 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | good experience | 2018 | 10/16/19 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | Very different than my past experience. Applied Economics was usually getting back to me in 6 months or even more, this time I had great experience. Very efficient and fast. | 2017 | 02/07/18 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 8 | 1 | 2 | Revision accepted by editor within two days after re-submission. Good experience | 2017 | 04/29/18 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 5 | 2 | 1 | A bit slow, but good comments by the referee. The paper was accepted quickly after revision. Overall, good experience. | 2013 | 12/18/14 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | Fairly quick acceptance. happy with outcome. | 2019 | 07/13/19 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 11 | 1 | 1 | Very long time to receive the first decision (major revision). Only one referee report in 11 months? Comments were quite simple, I resubmitted after one month, and the editor accepted the paper after 40 days. | 2017 | 09/12/18 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 0 | N/A | 0 | 10 days, very efficient, nice editor | 2013 | 04/22/13 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 6 | 3 | 1 | It took too long, I do not know if I would submit there again. | 2018 | 04/14/19 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | Accepted 3 days after resub even though the initial decision was RR with 'major revisions' | 2016 | 07/05/16 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Received first reply after 7 weeks. One synthetic but straight to the point referee report, asking for very specific and reasonable corrections to the paper. I did what was asked, and the revised paper was accepted by the editor after one week. Incredibly fast review process, on this occasion. | 2019 | 02/11/20 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 4 | N/A | 2 | Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied. Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. | 2011 | 08/02/13 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Very efficient, good reports. One referee read the paper line by line and gave constructive comments. The other referee was also good and liked the paper. | 2014 | 09/30/14 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 7 | 1 | 2 | The editor Mark Taylor accepted the paper after one day of the last re-submission. Very fast experience at last | 2015 | 10/06/16 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | My first submission in AE and it is the best experience ever. Editor Prof. David Peel is a very nice guy. | 2018 | 08/25/18 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 5 | N/A | 1 | Decent referee report, acceptance 3 days after submitting revision | 2019 | 02/11/20 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 2 | Excellent Experience. The referee reports were good. | 2016 | 04/06/17 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 12 | 1 | 1 | The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. Good. But first response took a whole year. | 2017 | 04/18/18 |
| Applied Economics | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2014 | 06/04/15 | |
| Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | unqualified referee, unhelpful comments | 2021 | 03/15/21 |
| Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Our paper is rejected after receiving one referee report. The report is rubbish and incorrect. I will never submit these bullshits to the editor who trusts me. It's time for the journal to kick out some unprofessional referees. | 2018 | 06/15/19 |
| Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 15 | N/A | 2 | After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. 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. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. | 2010 | 07/15/14 |
| Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2014 | 05/27/14 | |
| Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. The reviewer didn't even bother to read after page 8. | 2017 | 10/08/17 |
| Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | After more than 3 months of waiting, the paper was rejected with a one-sentence referee report. A waste of 250$ and time. | 2020 | 10/26/20 |
| Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Meaningless reviews. We resubmitted to AEPP and the paper received minor revisions after the second R&R | 2016 | 08/18/17 |
| Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in a week. | 2012 | 02/01/13 |
| Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | No feedback from handling editor, No refund. | 2019 | 06/22/20 |
| Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Nothing more frustrating than paying to submit a paper that was desk rejected after 2 months with no reason given for rejection... | 2014 | 12/18/14 |
| Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | "I find the overall contribution too small to justify publication in AEJ" | 2014 | 11/18/14 |
| Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | "I find the overall contribution too small to justify publication in AEJ" | 2014 | 11/18/14 |
| Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Very bad experience. An extremely meager, short, embarassing, useless report. Clearly no effort was put into it. No value for such a high submission fee. I wonder how an editor can accept such low-quality output from the referees. | 2021 | 11/30/21 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 0 | No referee reports, just got notified I was accepted. Very smooth process. | 2015 | 10/07/15 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 4 | N/A | 0 | Accepted without need for further revisions. | 2016 | 11/29/17 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | Fast and efficient process, good reports | 2021 | 02/01/22 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 3 | N/A | 1 | Single ref report had three very minor questions. I sent off the revision less than 24 hours after the R&R. Paper was accepted two days later. Easiest publication of my life! 3 months was a little long to wait, though. | 2018 | 05/04/18 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Relatively high submission fee. Good helpful report asking for few corrections. Revision accepted three hours after submission. | 2015 | 02/09/16 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 2 | My first ever publication. Got response approx. 2 months after first submission of manuscript. Decision by editor (Mark Taylor): minor revision and resubmit. Revision took about 1 week, one of the reviewers requested additional data/info about the methods used. Received acceptance on the same day i resubmitted the paper. Very smooth process in general, no complaints. | 2021 | 08/06/21 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 9 | N/A | 0 | Very different experience from the first time. Took 9 months for acceptance. | 2017 | 03/28/18 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 8 | N/A | 0 | Accepted as it is. Too long waiting time. | 2016 | 06/20/17 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 0 | N/A | 0 | Accepted after two weeks | 2010 | 07/26/13 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 09/28/15 | |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | very fast! | 2017 | 10/20/17 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 1 | 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. Good points, though, and overall a good experience. Much better than regular EL. | 2014 | 05/14/15 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2016 | 01/24/17 | |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | N/A | 0 | Smooth process. | 2016 | 12/02/16 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 0 | N/A | 0 | Got accepted after a week. Great experience. | 2016 | 12/07/16 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2017 | 07/03/18 | |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 0 | Pleasant first publication experience. Lots of minor standardized formating requests, then a gap of 10 weeks to get accepted. 6 months after that paper online. | 2018 | 12/04/18 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2016 | 01/24/17 | |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Unbelievably fast and helpful. Much better than plain vanilla Economics Letters. Editor was respectful and not full of himself. | 2014 | 01/16/15 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 4 | N/A | 0 | Accepted, no referee reports. Desk accept? | 2016 | 06/02/16 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Accepted | 0 | N/A | 0 | Got accepted after a week. Great experience. | 2016 | 12/07/16 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | one very short useless report in seven months | 2018 | 12/27/18 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | 5 months + 125USD for a referee rejection with a report of about 21 lines....SHAME | 2017 | 12/27/17 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | Paper rejected based on the editor's phone conversation with the referee. | 2013 | 07/31/13 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Referee comments show that it could be an RR but the editor rejected. Based on the large volume of submissions we receive... bla bla | 2019 | 06/26/19 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Unfathomably long time to first decision, referee comments impleid the paper was not read diligently, despite being just 4-5 pages. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand | 2019 | 06/16/19 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Not clear if I waited 3 months for a desk a reject or a referee reject.... The lack of referee reports makes me think it is the latter. Which....a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject. | 2015 | 10/28/15 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Rejection without arguments/referee report. I expected something more serious from a journal with such a high submission fee. | 2021 | 06/09/21 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | The referee report was more appropriate for R&R. The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it. Bad experience. | 2017 | 04/09/18 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | 3 months for one nonsense report | 2018 | 12/28/18 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | meaningless | 2016 | 03/23/17 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | One line "referee report". Argued lack of fit, dispite publishing a paper on the subject a few months ago | 2017 | 11/07/17 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after more than 6 months without any review or comments. Massive waste of time and money. | 2019 | 06/30/20 |
| Applied Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). 6 weeks for a desk reject w/o any explanation. | 2016 | 05/08/17 |
| Applied Economics Quarterly | Accepted | 4 | 6 | 2 | 2011 | 03/07/18 | |
| Applied Financial Economics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Still waiting | 2012 | 05/09/13 |
| Applied Financial Economics | Accepted | 7 | N/A | 0 | Acceted as is; not a single change requested. | 2013 | 09/25/14 |
| Applied Financial Economics | Accepted | 7 | 1 | 1 | After major r&r, accepted in 2 days | 2013 | 11/11/13 |
| Applied Financial Economics | Accepted | 8 | 1 | 1 | After r&r, accepted in 2 days | 2012 | 10/16/13 |
| Applied Financial Economics | Accepted | 7 | 1 | 2 | It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Very efficient indeed!!!!!!! | 2012 | 09/17/13 |
| Applied Financial Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 1 | half a page report. super slow for what they give. | 2018 | 03/18/18 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Pending | 2 | N/A | 2 | Pretty fast, 1 high quailty report. Working on my R&R now. | 2017 | 05/26/17 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2011 | 01/11/17 | |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 1 | 2 | 1 | very fast response and useful comments from a referee | 2014 | 11/06/17 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 1 | Very fast decisions. Two rounds of review. | 2019 | 07/06/20 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | Good experience | 2016 | 12/09/16 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Good experience. 2 constructive reports that improve the paper after 2 months. 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. | 2018 | 06/06/19 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 6 | 2 | 1 | Very efficiently run journal (at least my experience). Referee report was reasonable and improved the paper. | 2018 | 11/05/18 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 10 | 2 | 1 | Took a while, but great experience overall. Ref report definitely helpful | 2018 | 12/22/19 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 1 | RR with major changes, then RR with minor changes, then accepted after 1 week. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. Didn't let it go, Editor told him to "#"# off and published the paper anyway. Helpful comments from the editor (besides the usual thy shall cite my papers). Good experience. | 2013 | 07/17/14 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Very bad experience. 5 months for one low-quality referee report | 2018 | 05/29/19 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | superfast with 2 reports. | 2020 | 07/30/20 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | I regret to inform you that we do not consider this work to be of sufficient interest to our readership to warrant publication. Could've desk-rejected instead of two useless referee reports. | 2017 | 04/11/18 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 1 | extremely slow. useless report from "expert" regurgitating my explicitly stated caveats | 2016 | 05/30/17 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | After waiting for 6 months, I sent a polite email to the editor asking if the paper fell through the cracks. Got a rejection within a couple of days. The rejection came with a useless referee report. | 2014 | 04/03/15 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Unfortunately paper was assigned to handling editor who was on study leave. When we chased, we received detailed referee reports and R&R quickly, but were given just 2 weeks to make massive changes to the paper - we withdrew and used comments to publish elsewhere | 2017 | 06/16/19 |
| B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Empty report. Do not send a paper to BE JM | 2019 | 10/28/19 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Pending | 3 | N/A | 2 | Good reports | 2015 | 02/05/16 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Pending | 3 | N/A | 2 | Good reports | 2015 | 02/05/16 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Pending | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2019 | 04/26/19 | |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 1 | Great experience overall, Editor decided not to wait for the late referee not to slow down the process. | 2020 | 12/02/20 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 1 | The first response took more than I expected, but the referee's comment was very constructive. | 2018 | 02/06/19 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2015 | 07/15/16 | |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 straightforward reports with fair criticism. Accepted after revision within 1 month. Very clear and good process. | 2015 | 08/31/15 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 1 | Reasonably good experience; referee not overly experienced with topic. Editor handled the paper well. | 2019 | 02/16/20 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Accepted | 2 | 4 | 2 | Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript | 2019 | 06/16/20 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2016 | 09/09/16 | |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Accepted | 1 | 2 | 1 | Very efficient process. Received 1st response within a month with a very helpful referee report. After that Editor took 2 months to answer positively to my R&R. Overall, it was a smooth process. | 2016 | 02/21/17 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. Or rather, the editor is very lazy to follow up on the reports. One report was very positive, but the second one looked like it was written in ten minutes citing four papers of his own. Really unprofessional. | 2016 | 08/18/16 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience. | 2015 | 06/09/16 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Referees didn’t understand shape of indifference curves, confused standard errors for standard deviations, ignored figures in main text while misinterpreting figures from the appendix. Editor did not catch these oversights. STAY AWAY from this journal! | 2021 | 01/24/22 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 01/11/13 | |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | I want to express my thankness to a refreee, who provded an exremly high quality report | 2017 | 12/23/17 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Bad process. Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. Nothing substantial to improve the paper. Avoid this shitty journal. | 2016 | 11/06/16 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | After 4 months it remained Under review and these comments I get from the Reviewer: "You have a good idea. 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." Funny thing is Editor endorsed reviewer's response. | 2017 | 03/12/18 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Ref rejected in 3 weeks. Fair report but not anything that couldn't be corrected in R&R. Rejection came on Easter morning. | 2015 | 04/06/15 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Only one report. 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 | 2020 | 06/02/20 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Though it is rejcted, I want to express my thankness to the refreee, who provdes a exremly high quality report | 2017 | 12/22/17 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | One referee report was very good; the second was also modestly helpful. | 2012 | 04/07/13 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in one day. They kept the application fee. | 2012 | 12/21/12 |
| B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in two weeks after submitting a paper. | 2021 | 09/14/21 |
| BE Journal of Theoretical Economics | Accepted | 7 | 6 | 3 | Referees asked for reasonable stuff. Made some changes, argued against other changes, got accepted. | 2014 | 10/15/15 |
| BE Journal of Theoretical Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | One (very) useful report and one useless, 5 months from submission to acceptance | 2011 | 01/01/13 |
| BE Journal of Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Bad reports! Nothing constructive. | 2015 | 09/22/15 |
| BE Journal of Theoretical Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in an hour. Editor says, "your paper poses only a very marginal contribution to the literature in theoretical economics." | 2022 | 01/13/22 |
| British Journal of Industrial Relations | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 2 | Demanding but helpful referee reports. Overall smooth process. | 2019 | 11/09/21 |
| British Journal of Industrial Relations | Accepted | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2015 | 12/10/15 | |
| British Journal of Industrial Relations | Accepted | 5 | 4 | 2 | Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. Think I got lucky. | 2014 | 05/03/16 |
| British Journal of Industrial Relations | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Overall efficient and fair but demanding process. Tough reports that required a lot of work but ultimately improved the paper significantly. | 2018 | 11/10/18 |
| British Journal of Industrial Relations | Accepted | 13 | 3 | 1 | Editor had serious problems in getting referee reports although on this topic there should have been at least 20 potential referees | 2009 | 01/07/13 |
| British Journal of Industrial Relations | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected, one sentence given. It appears they don't like overly technical papers (it's an interdisciplinary journal so depends on who the editor is at the time - if not an economist, then avoid) | 2015 | 05/03/16 |
| Bulletin of Economic Research | Pending | 10 | N/A | 0 | It's been 10 months and still waiting for a first response of a short paper | 2017 | 10/04/17 |
| Bulletin of Economic Research | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Had to withdraw after ten months of waiting. Terribly run journal and I wouldn't advise anyone to submit there. | 2017 | 10/20/17 |
| Bulletin of Economic Research | Pending | 16 | N/A | 0 | I haven't received the first response yet. Nothing to add... | 2013 | 03/21/15 |
| Bulletin of Economic Research | Accepted | 8 | 2 | 2 | Francis Breedon is an efficient editor. The paper was accepted after one round of submission. | 2014 | 10/06/16 |
| Bulletin of Economic Research | Accepted | 15 | 9 | 2 | 2016 | 04/26/18 | |
| Bulletin of Economic Research | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 03/19/14 | |
| Bulletin of Economic Research | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | 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). | 2014 | 05/28/15 |
| Bulletin of Economic Research | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | A bit long for a short paper, comments were fair and detailed although they pointed the way to an R&R rather than rejection. Good quality reports for a low-ranked journal, though. | 2016 | 08/25/16 |
| Bulletin of Economic Research | Ref Reject | 13 | N/A | 2 | Mediocre reports. Absurd long process | 2014 | 08/05/15 |
| Bulletin of Economic Research | Desk Reject | 13 | N/A | 0 | That's right. It too me the editor 13 months to desk reject. In the meantime they lied to me saying that it was out for review and that they were awaiting referee scores. The journal is a joke! | 2014 | 02/08/16 |
| Bulletin of Economic Research | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | For a short paper, it took quite a longtime for deskreject without a single sentence relating to the paper. | 2016 | 10/25/16 |
| Cambridge Journal of Economics | Accepted | 6 | 6 | 2 | good reports, great editor who replies promptly to queries | 2012 | 05/18/13 |
| Cambridge Journal of Economics | Accepted | 5 | 5 | 1 | Professional co-editor and referee. Would try again in the future. | 2016 | 05/04/18 |
| Cambridge Journal of Economics | Accepted | 7 | 3 | 1 | My paper was a comment, so I consider this pretty slow. Comments were not really helpful. | 2018 | 11/25/19 |
| Cambridge Journal of Economics | Accepted | 5 | 5 | 1 | Professional co-editor and referee. Would try again in the future. | 2016 | 05/04/18 |
| Cambridge Journal of Economics | Accepted | 6 | 5 | 3 | Very tough journal with very extensive comments from 3 refs. Went from reject/resubmit to revise resubmit 1, revise resubmit 2, finally accepted. All queries tough but manageable - only difficulty was having 3 refs say sometimes contradictory things. Otherwise, great experience. Would submit here again. | 2016 | 10/27/17 |
| Cambridge Journal of Economics | Accepted | 5 | 5 | 1 | Professional co-editor and referee. Would try again in the future. | 2016 | 05/04/18 |
| Cambridge Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | Reports were ok but nothing special, especially given the time that has passed... Contacting the editor twice did not result in speeding up the process (but we received at least a reply). | 2016 | 08/09/17 |
| Cambridge Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | First experience with this journal. One referee gave very constructive comments, but referenced three papers by same person (I'm guess that's who referee was). Second ref put thought into it but was of a heterodox stripe that I'm not. And mentioned class struggle. Never would have won that person over. | 2014 | 04/29/15 |
| Cambridge Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Rejected after 2 weeks. Said the paper was to mathematical/econometrical for the journal. The paper was triying to test unit roots on capacity utilisation for a cross-section of countries to test some macro models; so it did stuff that even a Master's can understand. | 2019 | 12/10/19 |
| Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics | Accepted | 6 | 5 | 2 | 2014 | 02/12/16 | |
| Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | 1 | 0 | My paper was much of empirical. The editor emailed me after 6 days and said he read and liked the paper. And some more nice words. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. And because he could not find theoretical contributions. Overall, not bad experience. | 2017 | 08/03/17 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 2 | Constructive comments and Nice experimence! | 2017 | 10/20/18 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 3 | Very good experience. Strongly recommend submitting there. | 2017 | 05/14/18 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Accepted | 5 | 5 | 1 | Would submit again. CJE is recovering. | 2016 | 05/04/18 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 2 | Very good experience, competent referees and quick feedback after the resubmission. | 2017 | 08/20/18 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Accepted | 6 | 6 | 2 | Very helpful an detailed comments. | 2016 | 01/29/19 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Two fair reports. | 2014 | 01/24/15 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. Disappointing outcome, but OK overall experience | 2016 | 06/02/17 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2018 | 02/05/19 | |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2015 | 10/05/16 | |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Bad report, condescending. Referee cites one crucial assumption to kill the paper, but the paper does not make that assumption, and clearly explains it. Editor does not even both to check referee letter. | 2018 | 04/06/19 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | The editor and referee claimed the results were nice but hardly adoptable to other more general problems.... they suggested a more spezialized on topic journal. all in all, a costly but friendly and competent experience | 2016 | 03/11/17 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 01/19/13 | |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | I urged the editor to give me reports 3 months after the initial submission. Decent reports, no complain. | 2015 | 02/09/16 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | One referee provided lots of helpful comments and even some ideas for future research. They also indicated that the paper was better suited to a a different journal. The other report was useless. | 2014 | 04/20/15 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | 2 | 2 | Rejection after R&R. One nice and one not nice referee. | 2020 | 09/24/21 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Poor reports | 2013 | 08/06/15 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | One referee gave lots of great comments, while the other referee was pretty much useless. | 2014 | 12/12/14 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Very good referee reports. | 2014 | 05/07/15 |
| Canadian Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject with what appeared to be constructive comments but on closer inspection were worthless (points already made in the paper). Kicker: next day got an email to renew my CEA membership to be able to keep submitting to CJE! | 2018 | 10/26/18 |
| Canadian Public Policy | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 3 | 2015 | 07/03/15 | |
| Canadian Public Policy | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| China Economic Review | Pending | 1 | N/A | 2 | Very quick. R&R. Two reports are ok. | 2016 | 10/20/16 |
| China Economic Review | Pending | 2 | N/A | 1 | very quick | 2014 | 02/20/14 |
| China Economic Review | Pending | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2014 | 08/22/14 | |
| China Economic Review | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2019 | 12/22/19 | |
| China Economic Review | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | Good reports. Quick responds. Awesome experience. | 2014 | 10/23/14 |
| China Economic Review | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2019 | 12/22/19 | |
| China Economic Review | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2014 | 09/11/14 | |
| China Economic Review | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 2 | Very efficient process. One report was very constructive and helped improve the qualitiy of the paper. Editor was also very helpful. | 2019 | 11/27/19 |
| China Economic Review | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 3 | get first response in 28 days. Good report. Amazing efficiency. | 2016 | 06/10/16 |
| China Economic Review | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2014 | 04/21/14 | |
| China Economic Review | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | very efficient process | 2014 | 06/04/15 |
| China Economic Review | Accepted | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2015 | 03/23/17 | |
| China Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/27/12 | |
| China Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/25/12 | |
| China Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| China Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Rejected as "Given the poor quality of provincial GDP statistics, CER has decided not to publish papers based on provincial GDP data for now until the true data series at the provincial level are reconstructed" but they are still publishing with this data see for instance Lv, Liu, and Li 2020 Fiscal incentives, competition, and investment in China | 2019 | 03/04/20 |
| Computational Economics | Accepted | 12 | 2 | 2 | Fair and helpful reviews. | 2012 | 09/16/14 |
| Computational Economics | Accepted | 5 | 1 | 1 | Very high quality referee report. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. Quickly accepted after the revisions were completed. Very pleasant experience. | 2014 | 02/22/18 |
| Computational Economics | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | possible that the editor reviewed it himself, but was a fairly straightforward accept, trivial revisions only. smooth in general. | 2015 | 07/14/15 |
| Computational Economics | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2009 | 01/04/13 | |
| Computational Economics | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | possible that the editor reviewed it himself, but was a fairly straightforward accept, trivial revisions only. smooth in general. | 2015 | 07/14/15 |
| Computational Economics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Took 3 month for a simple "out of scope" notification!! | 2015 | 06/10/15 |
| Computational Statistics and Data Analysis | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. Receive reports from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. Most horrible and bizarre referee reports. Ex: CDF was derived to construct the likelihood of a discrete choice model, a reviewer writes the author does not use the derived CDF. Will never submit to this journal again. Stay away! | 2017 | 09/22/17 |
| Contemporary Accounting Research | Ref Reject | 2 | 2 | 2 | Very mixed report quality. One felt like it was literally written 30 minutes before the deadline. The referee acted as if I didn't cite and discuss papers mentioned in the report. The other was much more careful. The referee checked my citations and offered helpful comments. | 2015 | 01/12/16 |
| Contemporary Economic Policy | Pending | 7 | 4 | 3 | Weak editor. One good referee, one ok, one terrible. Terrible referee did not understand LATE and simply could not be satisfied. Took 3 rounds for editor to realize terrible referee was a crackpot. Will not submit again. | 2016 | 07/13/18 |
| Contemporary Economic Policy | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor | 2012 | 10/11/14 |
| Contemporary Economic Policy | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 1 | The reviewer was excellent, made the paper much better with his/her comments. Excellent handling. | 2014 | 03/22/17 |
| Contemporary Economic Policy | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 1 | Outstanding referee reports. | 2011 | 01/26/13 |
| Contemporary Economic Policy | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Super fast and clear feedback. I really appreciated the clarity the editor provided in helping to navigate the referee reports. In really sped things up. | 2016 | 10/31/17 |
| Contemporary Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | First report was helpful, second one was literally 2 lines. Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. Extremely poor experience | 2015 | 01/15/16 |
| Contemporary Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 6 | 2 | 2 | Two referee reports, one critical, one encouraging. Then one round of R&R and second referee changed his mind. Still my favorite rejection of all time - used Shakespeare in a footnote, and first referee (whose English was subpar) said that the footnote was "very poorly written." To summarize, this reviewer apparently thought he had better English than Shakespeare. Comical journal. | 2012 | 01/16/15 |
| Contemporary Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Extremely poor experience for a journal charging submission fees. It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. A grad student could do better! | 2016 | 07/15/16 |
| Contemporary Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | one of the reports was literaly 3 sentences. Although the other referee was positive, editor rejected it | 2015 | 04/07/15 |
| Contemporary Economic Policy | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | Terrible referees. Empirical results didn't match their political priors so recommended rejection. | 2016 | 07/13/18 |
| Cuadernos de Econom?a | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | All good, minor additions were suggested. | 2014 | 06/04/15 |
| Decisions in Economics and Finance | Accepted | 28 | 3 | 1 | 2006 | 12/22/12 | |
| Decisions in Economics and Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | fast desk rejection within 2 days. Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. I wish them luck. | 2016 | 07/09/16 |
| Defence and Peace Economics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor sent it to peer review in one day. Fast and very polite response. | 2016 | 07/09/16 |
| Defence and Peace Economics | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | very good communication with the editor | 2015 | 06/07/15 |
| Defence and Peace Economics | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 1 | Good communication with the editor, very helpful referee report | 2012 | 12/05/13 |
| Demography | Ref Reject | 6 | 8 | 3 | Perhaps the worst experience ever. Some reviewers disappeared after the first review, the editors could't even find an alternative, and the comments were not assessed critically by the editors due to an editorial change. The former editors at the penn state just issued reject to relieve their editorial jobs. | 2018 | 12/08/19 |
| Demography | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Two horribly low quality reports. Neither of the two reviewers seemed t have read the paper. Each report was one small paragraph long. Horrible experience, and it is not even that good a journal! | 2015 | 05/06/16 |
| Demography | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected within 7 days. Editor wrote a few short comments. | 2018 | 03/19/18 |
| Demography | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 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. | 2014 | 07/07/14 |
| Demography | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Six weeks for a desk reject with no reasons offered | 2013 | 01/14/14 |
| Demography | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Deputy Editor rejected the paper with insufficient contribution and a comment that doesn't make sense. | 2014 | 07/28/14 |
| Development and Change | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2 months, the article is still under internal review... | 2015 | 03/13/15 |
| Development and Change | Pending | 36 | 12 | 0 | Under editor's evaluation for almost 2 months. withdrew the paper after contacting the journal twice | 2018 | 12/16/18 |
| Development Policy Review | Pending | 12 | N/A | 0 | DPR had my manuscript for over a year, and never even got it under review. I inquired a few times, and they responded promptly and politely, but sitting on a manuscript for a year is obviously unacceptable. I withdrew the manuscript and will never submit here again. Awful experience. | 2017 | 05/07/18 |
| Development Studies | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 reviewers, 1 poor, 1 quite demanding and useful. Two rounds of R&R! | 2014 | 11/18/14 |
| Development Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 7 days no comments | 2012 | 12/21/12 |
| Eastern Economic Journal | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Very helpful comments from reviewers. | 2014 | 07/25/14 |
| Eastern Economic Journal | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | good reports. fair and timely process. | 2013 | 06/13/14 |
| Eastern Economic Journal | Accepted | 0 | 1 | 2 | Expedient. Excellent comments from reviewers | 2013 | 07/25/14 |
| Eastern Economic Journal | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Helpful referee reports. Good experience, great turnaround. | 2013 | 12/18/13 |
| Eastern European Economics | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 0 | The article was accepted by the referees | 2007 | 09/07/14 |
| Eastern European Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Very thorough and professional | 2018 | 11/29/18 |
| Ecological Economics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2020 | 03/02/21 | |
| Ecological Economics | Accepted | 4 | N/A | 1 | Useful and encouraging comments from referees, who appeared very interested in improving the paper and offering helpful suggestions to do so. | 2016 | 02/07/17 |
| Ecological Economics | Accepted | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2009 | 01/09/13 | |
| Ecological Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Really good experience, good comments and moved quickly through the process. Would submit again. | 2020 | 03/18/21 |
| Ecological Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Useful and interesting comments | 2016 | 03/24/17 |
| Ecological Economics | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 3 | Detailed and useful referee reports | 2010 | 01/22/13 |
| Ecological Economics | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 3 | 14 months from submission to publication online. In print a couple of weeks later. | 2010 | 12/21/12 |
| Ecological Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | journal has a reputation for being out of the mainstream of econ. but i think it is an important one that should be considered a bonafide econ journal. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. | 2014 | 11/27/16 |
| Ecological Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | 3 | 3 | Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees | 2012 | 04/16/13 |
| Ecological Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | 4 | 2 | Very bad reports from non economists. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again | 2013 | 06/30/14 |
| Ecological Economics | Ref Reject | 12 | N/A | 1 | 2010 | 12/20/12 | |
| Ecological Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in 3 days. | 2018 | 04/17/18 |
| Ecological Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected with 1 sentence after 2 months. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!! | 2016 | 03/01/17 |
| Ecological Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | The editor informed us that the contribution of the paper was not high enough for this journal although the topic has been examined in the past by other papers in this Journal | 2016 | 10/05/16 |
| Ecological Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 1 month. The editor's comments show that he is totally uninformed about the literature. | 2020 | 08/30/21 |
| Ecological Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | Received desk rejection from one of the editors quoting results completely unrelated to my paper. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. I contacted the journal about that but no response. I am very surprised by this unprofessional oversight. Admittedly, they must receive a lot of submissions, but that does not excuse this. | 2016 | 11/19/16 |
| Ecological Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 2 days | 2020 | 06/13/20 |
| Econometric Reviews | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Horrible! Two weeks and they not assigned a manuscript ID number. | 2017 | 09/22/17 |
| Econometric Reviews | Accepted | 9 | 8 | 4 | two years is a bit too long, especially given that it will take more than a year before the paper appears in the journal | 2013 | 11/16/15 |
| Econometric Reviews | Accepted | 4 | 6 | 2 | One reviewer seemed to think a clean accept, one was 'not really convinced'. Editor gave me chance to convince other referee. | 2013 | 10/28/14 |
| Econometric Reviews | Ref Reject | 14 | N/A | 0 | Unacceptable waiting time. The referee reports were crap (minor points without really saying anything about the research question, the methodology and the results of the paper). After 10+ years in a research institution, counless submission, countless rejections, and some papers published in highly ranked journal, this was definitely my worst experience ever. | 2013 | 11/06/14 |
| Econometric Reviews | Ref Reject | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2015 | 08/13/15 | |
| Econometric Reviews | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | Overall experience is horrible. Took 7 months to give 1 referee report with just 5 lines. Will never submit again to ER. Stay away! | 2017 | 04/05/18 |
| Econometric Reviews | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | 2 mildly useful reports. one referee pointed to their own working paper which is still not published (jan 2017) | 2015 | 01/14/17 |
| Econometric Theory | Ref Reject | 12 | N/A | 1 | Reminded several times and after waiting 1 year got one referee report. Summary understated contribution of the paper making it looking boring. Rejection based on technical point, which could be fixed withing 2 weeks. Very poor experience. | 2015 | 06/07/17 |
| Econometric Theory | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | very good reports | 2013 | 03/18/14 |
| Econometric Theory | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Positive: 1 high quality referee report and some comments by the co-editor; Negative: 2 other referee reports of medium to very low quality | 2015 | 05/29/15 |
| Econometric Theory | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast desk reject. No specfic comment on the paper. | 2018 | 01/28/19 |
| Econometric Theory | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | No arguments were provided | 2017 | 07/17/17 |
| Econometrica | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2008 | 11/17/13 | |
| Econometrica | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2017 | 04/27/18 | |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | 2013 | 11/01/13 | |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | good referee reports | 2012 | 05/03/13 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Fully ignorant referees | 2014 | 02/11/15 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Quick, very good feedback. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. No regrets | 2018 | 05/14/18 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 2017 | 02/28/18 | |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Good reports, not extremely helpful, but good | 2015 | 05/26/15 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | very good referee comments | 2013 | 12/31/14 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | Very quick rejection, but I received a nice response from one of the co-editors. He said he liked my paper and thought it was inventive. However, he suggested that I submit my paper to a theory journal. He even signed the letter. | 2021 | 12/16/21 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Low-quality reports, waste of time. | 2015 | 03/07/16 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Two reports are suggestive but the other one was a low-quality. It seems that the last guy didn't read the paper carefully and I wonder how it could take 4month to write such a poor report. | 2017 | 09/10/17 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Two referee reports very useful, pointing to the same concerns, one of them quite positive and friendly, providing numerous pathways to pursue in the future. Third report seemed written by a sage speaking in amharic, most statements were elliptical in nature, and we were left wondering what the referee's point had been. On the whole very good experience. | 2015 | 05/03/15 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Great feedback from editor, and semi-useful reviews. | 2020 | 05/31/21 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | One was thoughtful report, pointed to at least one direction we can improve. Second was uninformative. | 2018 | 05/13/19 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 2016 | 12/26/16 | |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | 2018 | 12/17/18 | |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Two very helpful reports and encouraging letter from AE | 2012 | 03/05/13 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Shockingly low quality reports that were nearly identical. Good for knowing what people didn't like, but not clear how to improve. | 2016 | 09/10/16 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Three referee reports. One obviously senior who doesn't care, openly says didn't read some parts. Other two reports are fine, although one other also did not read a section, s/he says. All suggest major revision and change of approach. The senior is useless as s/he was not happy that the paper is against an established theory. | 2017 | 07/13/18 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 4 | Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. Result not general enough for ECMA. Referees all showed an understanding of the paper and suggestions were useful. | 2017 | 02/27/18 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | 2010 | 01/11/13 | |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | reports not very insightful | 2012 | 01/25/13 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | no negative comments, just say that the contribution is not big enough for Econometrica, which is completely understandable. | 2009 | 10/04/15 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 5 | 2018 | 07/23/18 | |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | The rejection was fair but the referee report uninformative and boilerplate. | 2017 | 09/23/18 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | 3 good ref reports | 2015 | 09/13/15 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | All three referees are weak on maths | 2014 | 02/11/15 |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/28/12 | |
| Econometrica | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 2 referees clearly read the paper and made some good and insightful comments. They like the paper but the contribution not enough for Econometrica. Suggest field journal. Overall good experience. | 2020 | 11/23/20 |
| Econometrica | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | two weeks. desk with a letter from editor. he clearly read the paper. comments were not very insoghtful, but decision & process overall fair. | 2018 | 01/14/19 |
| Econometrica | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fair decision. Useful letter from the editor. | 2014 | 04/30/15 |
| Econometrica | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 06/03/13 | |
| Econometrica | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Paper too good for their journal. Recommend trying better journal. | 2015 | 10/19/15 |
| Econometrica | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Some comments from the editor, some are useful. | 2019 | 02/18/19 |
| Econometrica | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | desk reject with very short referee note | 2014 | 12/22/14 |
| Econometrica | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | quick (7 days) desk reject | 2017 | 07/10/17 |
| Econometrica | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 02/15/13 | |
| Econometrics Journal | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Referees basically thought contribution was too small to merit publishing. | 2012 | 10/28/14 |
| Econometrics Journal | Ref Reject | 1 | 1 | 2 | A complete discrage. Pathetic referee reports. Stay away from this journal if you do not have a connection from inside. Just stay away! | 2018 | 07/24/18 |
| Econometrics Journal | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | The contribution of the paper as it stands to be insu¢ cient for publication in The Econometrics Journal. | 2014 | 05/12/15 |
| Econometrics Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 08/13/15 | |
| Econometrics Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | 1 | 0 | Desk rejection in 6 minutes with a "pretended" letter, which could be used for any paper. The editor claimed that himself and another associate editor read the paper. Unbelieveble how fast some journals work!!!!! | 2013 | 06/21/14 |
| Econometrics Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 11/06/14 | |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Pending | 6 | N/A | 0 | My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper | 2017 | 08/01/17 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Accepted | 7 | 7 | 1 | Had to email them to speed up the revision process. Minor changes, though. Cool editor. | 2014 | 08/16/15 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Accepted | 3 | 6 | 2 | Journal response was quick. Took about 2.5-3 months for first response which detailed a lot of work - two R & R decisions, each of which took about 2 months for referees to get back on. | 2011 | 12/04/13 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2017 | 09/10/19 | |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Accepted | 5 | 4 | 2 | Excellent experience, the editor was clear on what is required after first round RR. Accepted once I satisfied the referees. Excellent referees too, no nitpicking, focused on contribution. | 2018 | 02/10/19 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Accepted | 12 | 12 | 2 | Very long process. Apparently the assigned coeditor left and paper got stuck. But very quick process after contacting editorial office. | 2012 | 07/24/16 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 2016 | 12/09/17 | |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Low-quality reports. | 2014 | 11/06/14 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2018 | 06/06/18 | |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Ref Reject | 12 | N/A | 2 | Long wait but not a bad experience overall, referee comments were useful. | 2013 | 03/05/14 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 1 | One report from which you learn nothing | 2012 | 03/07/13 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 04/16/13 | |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | almost useless and the editor is too slow. | 2013 | 05/27/14 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Very good experience. Two referees were lukewarm but couldn't really point out too much that was wrong. Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE. | 2014 | 05/03/15 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Mentioned that they do not consider theoretical papers. Duh | 2013 | 07/13/13 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very helpful response from editor giving specific reasons that the manuscript would not be sent to referees | 2019 | 07/22/19 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk reject in one week | 2021 | 03/29/21 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Very polite editor. | 2014 | 03/05/14 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk reject in one week | 2021 | 03/29/21 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Desk Reject | 4 | 3 | 2 | Two very useful ref reports in the first round. Worked butt off to respond to them. Editor decided to not even send the revised paper back to the referees. What a terrible journal. Nonder they are going down in ranking in Dev Econ steadily | 2013 | 06/01/15 |
| Economic Development and Cultural Change | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk Rejected after 2 days. Editor argued I had observational data and no identification, hence instant rejection. | 2020 | 12/02/20 |
| Economic History Review | Accepted | 3 | 5 | 3 | 2014 | 01/27/16 | |
| Economic History Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 1 of 3 referee reports was helpful | 2019 | 04/04/20 |
| Economic History Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Thanks for your joining the Society, by the way, we don't think your historical paper with brand new historical data is right for a history journal. Joke rejection but not unexpected from this team | 2021 | 03/02/21 |
| Economic Inquiry | Pending | 4 | 7 | 2 | 2 referee reports: first one, r&r; second one, reject and resubmit. editor read the paper and decided to give it an r&r. | 2014 | 03/11/15 |
| Economic Inquiry | Pending | 4 | N/A | 0 | Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! Ughhh...I will probably withdraw the submission | 2014 | 11/17/14 |
| Economic Inquiry | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | The referees responded very quickly and with excellent, high quality reports. Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help. | 2012 | 07/27/14 |
| Economic Inquiry | Accepted | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2008 | 12/21/12 | |
| Economic Inquiry | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Very useful referee reports. Professional editor. | 2012 | 11/20/14 |
| Economic Inquiry | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 3 | Very quick and extremely professional. Will submit there in the future. | 2018 | 11/20/18 |
| Economic Inquiry | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 2 | superfast handling | 2013 | 05/29/14 |
| Economic Inquiry | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 2 | very efficient | 2013 | 06/19/13 |
| Economic Inquiry | Accepted | 9 | 4 | 3 | two good reports and one short report | 2015 | 10/04/16 |
| Economic Inquiry | Accepted | 14 | 10 | 3 | It is the worst experience I have ever had with a journal. Outcome was positive in the end, but I had to follow some nonsense instructions from the referees and the editor. I will never submit there again | 2014 | 08/11/16 |
| Economic Inquiry | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 3 | Excellent and constructive reports. Efficient process and fast decision | 2019 | 08/23/20 |
| Economic Inquiry | Accepted | 12 | 4 | 2 | 2011 | 12/24/12 | |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 11 | N/A | 2 | 2 very short reports after waiting 11 months and paying a crazy submission fee. Avoid that journal | 2015 | 12/10/15 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | After seven month the co-editor rejects the paper based on a report which is terrible. The referee did not understand the basic assumption of the model. Complete waste of time. | 2014 | 05/10/15 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Expensive but quick. One very good report, 6 pages long. Other referee didn't have a clue. | 2018 | 12/08/18 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Fast Resposne in 10 week. One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. The main sugguestion is to come up with a theoretical model and erase half of the work done. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. It would be a positive experience if submission were free. | 2014 | 02/05/15 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | After "awaiting referee selection" for 4 months, I sent a query and got one referee report. It seems that the reviewer didn't correctly understand the setup of the model; But, some very useful comments were provided. I don't know what to add. | 2018 | 03/09/19 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | 4 months with the editor before being sent to referees. 3 more months for two reports containing blatant mistakes and outrageous claims that have nothing to do with the paper. I suspect either grad students or people outside of the field. Either way, unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. | 2014 | 01/28/15 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Mediocre assessment from referee with some helpful suggestions. Editor agreed = reject. | 2013 | 04/17/14 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very fast and fair process, despite the negative outcome. | 2013 | 11/06/13 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 13 | N/A | 3 | Very long wait. 1 positive and 1 negative report. Editor sent a peper to a 3rd ref, which took forever to write another negative report. | 2010 | 02/03/13 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | One excellent referee report, and one decent one. Good experience overall | 2014 | 04/23/14 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 14 | N/A | 0 | took more than 1 year to get one referee report. AVOID it | 2016 | 01/15/18 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 16 | 12 | 1 | Most inefficient handling ever. Shame on Co-Editor. | 2008 | 02/03/13 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | 2014 | 04/22/14 | |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Only one semi-informative report. At least they are faster than their reputation. | 2015 | 12/14/15 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Just under 3 months to referee reject | 2021 | 11/11/21 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 5 | 8 | 2 | Worst experience so far. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. Do not submit there. | 2013 | 11/03/14 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. No progress in six months although I send emails to push. Main editor Wilson takes care of it. Two month later it is rejected and get two referee reports (fair enough there). Not a good experience. Wilson inform me, on average, EI first decision is in 67 days, but my six months delay is not due to neglect (YEAH RIGHT! FYI: Your editor sucks). | 2017 | 03/16/18 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2010 | 01/02/13 | |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 1 | Rejected with only 1 referee reports and after waiting 10 months! Insane process and utterly inexperienced referee. Editor said he is sorry for the wait... | 2015 | 10/08/15 |
| Economic Inquiry | Ref Reject | 12 | 9 | 2 | still waiting for the outcome of the second round. Worst experience with a journal so far. | 2012 | 11/03/14 |
| Economic Inquiry | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | The editor handling the paper had no idea about the literature. He made the most stupid argument to reject the paper. Commented that something we are doing is not correct, while all the papers in the field are doing the same. One of the papers has over 3000 citations. The least the editor could have done is to assign another editor. | 2014 | 05/12/14 |
| Economic Inquiry | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Topic is too specfic... | 2015 | 11/08/15 |
| Economic Inquiry | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Desk rejection based on lack of fit, altough there were at least 4 papers published on the same topic in previous years. They keep the submission fees, very efficient cash cow! | 2015 | 11/21/15 |
| Economic Inquiry | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/27/12 | |
| Economic Inquiry | Desk Reject | 1 | 1 | 0 | Unprofessional and incorrect comments by co-editor Rob Simmons. I have no problem receiving a desk-reject, but the stated reasons show no understanding of our research. This would be fine if desk-reject was motivated by "not a good fit" or such. Disappointing experience. | 2015 | 11/18/15 |
| Economic Inquiry | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 09/17/14 | |
| Economic Inquiry | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | desk rejected after more than 2 months, very generic motivation (try a field journal), they took the submission fees and thanked me a lot for the payment! | 2015 | 03/04/16 |
| Economic Inquiry | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | desk rejected after thee months. No reason given (just lack of fit..), no suggestions to improve, no money back. Garbage | 2018 | 03/01/19 |
| Economic Inquiry | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Editor recommended field journal submission. | 2015 | 02/13/15 |
| Economic Inquiry | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | 4 months for a desk rejection based on what it appears to be a very superficial reading of the abstract. Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. | 2014 | 10/28/14 |
| Economic Journal | Pending | 4 | N/A | 2 | one very good report | 2012 | 01/25/13 |
| Economic Journal | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. | 2012 | 07/31/14 |
| Economic Journal | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2014 | 10/04/15 | |
| Economic Journal | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2012 | 08/02/13 | |
| Economic Journal | Accepted | 5 | 2 | 2 | All reports were useful and very demanding | 2011 | 03/19/13 |
| Economic Journal | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 3 | Helpful and competent editor who made clear what were the important points to address. Good reports. Fast turnaround, I'm very happy with the experience. | 2016 | 08/30/17 |
| Economic Journal | Accepted | 6 | 4 | 2 | Nice reports that improve the quality and readability of the paper. | 2020 | 01/03/22 |
| Economic Journal | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. | 2013 | 06/18/14 |
| Economic Journal | Accepted | 4 | 5 | 2 | good reports; excellent editor who acts like an additional referee. | 2012 | 11/09/13 |
| Economic Journal | Accepted | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2011 | 12/21/12 | |
| Economic Journal | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | Very helpful reports | 2014 | 01/11/17 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 1 good report, 1 bad one, decent turnaround time | 2015 | 06/30/15 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Super quick process. Editor (Voth) was polite but did not say much. One report very solid and useful, another (two-paragraph one) looks confusing. | 2017 | 03/15/18 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Fair and constructive comments. Not enough contribution. | 2021 | 02/17/22 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | One referee liked it, the other and the editor didn't. Some good comments though. | 2015 | 10/13/15 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | very useful referee reports | 2012 | 08/02/13 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | 2017 | 12/09/17 | |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | 12 | 3 | Bad experience | 2017 | 02/14/19 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 useful reports | 2016 | 08/02/17 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 06/14/13 | |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 5 | 10 | 2 | only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. Referee 1 happy with resubmission (no further comments), referee 2 suggested rejection or major rewriting. Paper rejected by editor. Long reports with some good comments | 2015 | 09/26/17 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Two referees, two weak R&Rs, editor rejects despite the recommendations of referees. Quite upsetting. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! | 2015 | 02/04/16 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 2 | Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. Referees did not show good knowledge of the subject. Paper was poorly read by the referees. | 2014 | 10/13/14 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 3 | Took way to long for three one page poor quality reports | 2017 | 01/22/18 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | 9 | 3 | Terrible experience - slow and unjustified decision. Cantillon is not a good editor. | 2018 | 10/28/20 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 3 | 2013 | 02/12/14 | |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | A fairly high quality report, useful, within 24 days. Will submit again (other work, of course) on the basis of professionalism and treatment. High quality editing. | 2013 | 07/17/14 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Great letter from Nezih G and two good referee reports. Rejected as contribution isn't good enough | 2019 | 04/07/20 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Took 5 months in total, 2 reports, a paragraph each. | 2017 | 10/02/17 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Useless reports! | 2016 | 08/21/16 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | one so-so report and one excellent report | 2013 | 01/23/14 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Useful and fair comments | 2018 | 06/16/19 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 2017 | 09/10/19 | |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics | 2017 | 08/13/18 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | One report was helpful; the other not. | 2016 | 12/31/16 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 4 | Painfully crushing rejection, as all referees agreed it was a good paper, but had some valid concerns about length and possible general interest contribution. Good reports, but what a punch in the gut. Might have been better if they said they hate the paper. | 2021 | 05/28/21 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | 3 Reports. 1 great, 1 so so, 1 absolutely trash (the referee only argued on the reliability of the benchmark case, which is a well established result in the literature!!!). High Quality Editing. Will submit again. | 2016 | 05/25/17 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Bad experience. One decent and one sloppy report | 2019 | 06/19/20 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | The editor had good words about the paper but one ref didn't like it, so he rejected it. Would try again. | 2015 | 12/21/16 |
| Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 4 | 2013 | 01/29/14 | |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick, professional, very acceptable decision. | 2013 | 08/12/13 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Quick desk rejection; field journals recommende | 2018 | 09/30/18 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 10/04/15 | |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected within one week, but useful comments and advice given by editor, Uhlig | 2015 | 06/16/19 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | justified decison with kind and informed letter from the editor | 2015 | 04/30/15 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2018 | 05/14/18 | |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 3 week desk reject. Referred to field, seems editor at least scanned and maybe even read the whole thing. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. | 2015 | 03/09/15 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal | 2016 | 12/20/16 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2 Weeks. Did not receive a rejection letter from the co-editor. Checked status online after a month to see the outcome. | 2018 | 12/13/18 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fairly standard rejection letter, not general enough. Quick -- 3 days after editor was assigned. | 2018 | 11/30/18 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | very quick to desk reject ( | 2021 | 11/22/21 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Dest rejected in three days. "In order to speed up and improve the submission process for both authors and referees, we have raised the number of papers that we reject without seeking reports." | 2015 | 03/26/15 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Dest rejected in 2 days. Saying that the topic is not general enough. Which is BS because paper on the same topic was published a couple of months earlier in EJ. But written by big shots. | 2020 | 05/05/21 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast desk reject (~2 weeks) with a couple of brief, helpful comments from the editor | 2020 | 02/26/20 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 06/08/16 | |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in 1 week. Not general interest enough, | 2017 | 10/16/17 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Submitted reports from a previous (close) referee rejection at a higher ranked journal. Still got rejected. Annoying! | 2018 | 10/09/18 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejection after 3 days. The contribution of the paper is not suficient for the EJ. The Editor sugested the JIE. | 2016 | 06/30/16 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast and kind desk rejection. And, hey, we cannot select 2017... | 2016 | 05/09/17 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject - referred to field journal | 2014 | 12/08/14 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in two weeks. Not enough novelty | 2018 | 10/01/19 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | "Paper not of general interest, try sending to a field journal". Polite / nice email from Editor. I appreciate the quick desk reject. | 2019 | 12/18/19 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Took a little over a month for the desk reject and no refunds. | 2015 | 06/17/15 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 25 minutes. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. | 2021 | 02/04/21 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick and friendly desk reject | 2019 | 09/03/19 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 12/31/12 | |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. | 2020 | 05/31/21 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Kind and informed letter from editor. Not good enough for general interest. Suggested top field (JPubE in our case). | 2016 | 03/09/17 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | One week desk rejection with form letter. $65 down the drain! | 2016 | 09/20/16 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Bad experience overall. I needed to contact the editorial office to know who the editor was, if the paper was sent to referess and etcc, and this after more than a month that the paper was submitted. Notice that I submitted there on the basis of the widely publicized (EEA Gothenburg) fastness of this journal. In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. At the time the editor had still the paper sitting on his desk. 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. Overall I think this journal should get a more diverse editorial board. Some people are simply too narrow in the scope of their research to be editors of a journal which claims to be of "general interest" | 2014 | 08/17/14 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 week: nice, but no fit with general interest. Suggested field journal. | 2016 | 10/10/16 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Just a couple of days for rejection, he had good words to say but paper too specific for general-interest. Some decent comments nevertheless. | 2016 | 05/06/17 |
| Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast desk reject (Ciccone), after few days. Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject. | 2012 | 02/18/13 |
| Economic Modelling | Pending | 2 | 2 | 2 | Long and bad reviewing process. Bad experience, waste of money and time. After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. After that, he asked to completely rewrite paper, with another model, made some comments regarding the relevance of the case study, the method used (time series), the theoretical background,... If the editor tought the paper did not fit the scope of the journal, he should have rejected it at the very beginning of the process, without engaging in a peer-review. | 2019 | 07/01/20 |
| Economic Modelling | Pending | 24 | N/A | 0 | short straightforward paper, should take max 2 hours to read carefully,still under review, editor (Hall) non-responsive | 2012 | 06/02/14 |
| Economic Modelling | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | waiting 30 months for response, editor not responding to inquiries | 2012 | 08/08/14 |
| Economic Modelling | Pending | 2 | N/A | 2 | Reports are not very detailed, but generally comments are fair. | 2020 | 04/26/20 |
| Economic Modelling | Pending | 2 | 2 | 2 | Afwul experience. There were 2 rounds of revision after which the reviewers validated the manuscript. At this point, the editor asked us to review the abstract and the highlights. And once that was done, he wanted us to rewrite the article. He didn't want the article but didn't have the courage to tell us. In short, he left us only one option: not to resubmit. Poorly managed editorial process. Besides, the editor's messages were rude. | 2019 | 07/01/20 |
| Economic Modelling | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | waiting 19 months as of today, sent 3 reminfers, Hall nor anybody else from the journal havent responded so far to any of my emails | 2013 | 08/12/14 |
| Economic Modelling | Pending | 36 | 12 | 1 | 2011 | 04/23/14 | |
| Economic Modelling | Pending | 36 | N/A | 0 | Withdrew article from consideration after 18 months of wait. | 2013 | 02/09/15 |
| Economic Modelling | Pending | 23 | 12 | 1 | submitted 4 years ago, got a response after nearly 2, resubmitted, now waiting more than a year for a result, editor not responsive to queries about the status, look elsewhere before soubmitting in the Economic Modelling, terrible experience, I am thinking about withdrawing | 2011 | 10/09/15 |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 3 | 7 | 2 | Two referee reports. Good handling by the editor. Overall, good experience | 2019 | 09/14/20 |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 1 | 2 | 3 | Very efficient. I will try in the future. | 2018 | 10/24/19 |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 1 | 2 | 3 | Very efficient. I will try in the future. | 2018 | 10/24/19 |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Fast and fair. Good experience. | 2017 | 06/28/17 |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 1 | Difficulties to reach the editor, but useful report and very fast decision (1 day) after submitted the revised manuscript. | 2013 | 10/31/14 |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | Fast turn around with great referee reports that significantly improved the paper. Great experience. | 2018 | 07/04/18 |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2012 | 01/11/13 | |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 3 | Overall, very happy with the process. Both editor and referees liked the paper, comments from referees are on the point and constructive. | 2019 | 10/14/19 |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 9 | 4 | 2 | Hall is an inefficent editor | 2014 | 10/25/14 |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 8 | 6 | 4 | 4 rounds, 23 months! | 2014 | 02/22/18 |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2011 | 01/11/13 | |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2012 | 01/04/13 | |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 2 | Very quick process. Prof. Sushanta Mallick handles the paper. Two referee reports, one good and constructive and the other so-so. Overall, great experience. | 2016 | 03/28/17 |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 3 | Extremely fast. Great experience. | 2015 | 01/18/17 |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 1 | Everything fair. | 2012 | 04/20/13 |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Accepted after 3 R&R. Two referees. One reviewer was ok after the first R&R. The other one, who wanted extra revises, was a bit of stupid. The editor (Mallick) gave us some additional advice and was ok with the result. | 2019 | 01/22/21 |
| Economic Modelling | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | The process was fair, with good pace. Probably I was a bit lucky the 2 referees liked the idea of teh paper sicne ti was a bit sort and basically asked me to do some mreo stuff. However, the editor (Mallick) kindly suggested to add papers from this journal ("As there is not citation from this journal when the journal has published several papers on this topic"). That is not cool. I dont care whether you want to increase citations and impact factor fo your journal. You have to earn it! | 2017 | 12/21/17 |
| Economic Modelling | Ref Reject | 6 | 6 | 1 | I had a paper that was to be revised and the review was very positive. This was after a 6 month wait and emails to the editor to follow up. Revised carefully and resent, then they sent to another editor and another reviewer whose report contradicted the first and was very vague. The second editor rejected it. Process lasted one year with nontransparent, contradictory review process. | 2014 | 02/07/15 |
| Economic Modelling | Ref Reject | 4 | 4 | 1 | After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected. After doing what the, very stupid, referee asked he said "not a big enough contribution". | 2017 | 05/04/18 |
| Economic Modelling | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Editor efficient, but strange experience: Two referees were very favorable, but the third referee rejected by quoting a "flaw" which was in fact correct. The policy of the journal is to let each author appoint the referees, which improves speed on one hand but generates citation groups on the other hand. In a word, this is not a serious journal. | 2012 | 04/23/13 |
| Economic Modelling | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Very poor handling by editor. Two reports. One report of 10 lines with one minor comment and the other one, longer but with also minor comments. All comments seem easy to answer. Unfair decision | 2019 | 01/17/19 |
| Economic Modelling | Ref Reject | 5 | 3 | 2 | Horrible experience! After revising the paper based on the comments of two referees, the Associate editor chimed in with his useless comments to reject the paper. It is frustrating to get rejected after convincing the referees. They are also very slow! | 2021 | 03/12/22 |
| Economic Modelling | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Less than 2 months for the decision with 2 reports, which is very quick. But the decision was unfair. | 2019 | 07/13/20 |
| Economic Modelling | Ref Reject | 4 | 2 | 3 | The editor, one AE and some referees (in the first stage there was only one, completely irrelevant) have insulted my intelligence. Not anymore. | 2020 | 05/13/21 |
| Economic Modelling | Ref Reject | 1 | 1 | 3 | There is no option to choose 'Referees Accepted' but 'Editor Rejected'. After one round of revision, two of the three reviewers accepted the paper and one requested at best minor revision. The editor (Sushanta Mallick) rejected it by 'just by looking at the descriptive statistics' (the original words from the decision letter). | 2018 | 09/02/18 |
| Economic Modelling | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 1 | After waiting for 9 months, I sent an email to the editor asking about the paper status. Got a rejection within a couple of days without any constructive comment. | 2013 | 04/14/15 |
| Economic Modelling | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Referee wrote a short report with easily implementable suggestions, suggesting revision. Editor had a "confidential" report that he wouldn't share, and on the basis of that chose rejection. | 2015 | 03/18/16 |
| Economic Modelling | Ref Reject | 10 | 3 | 2 | After 10 months waiting, I had a revise and resubmit decision. The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. After resubmission, I was informed that the paper would be sent to another editor (Prof. Mallick). 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". It seems to me that this was an easy way for the new Editor to reject the paper! | 2013 | 03/20/15 |
| Economic Modelling | Ref Reject | 13 | N/A | 2 | Held my paper for a full year and rejected it on a split decision with one ref suggesting an RR and the other a reject. Paper has since been published. | 2010 | 08/02/13 |
| Economic Modelling | Ref Reject | 13 | N/A | 1 | Special issue editor started to referee himself. Comments didn't make sense. Editor did not intervene and kept hiding throughout. Shameless people. | 2012 | 02/26/14 |
| Economic Modelling | Desk Reject | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2019 | 07/01/20 | |
| Economic Policy | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | This journal is completely a piece of junk. A UK guy handles my paper and give me a desk rejection after 3 months. Never deal with stupid journal anymore. | 2021 | 06/17/21 |
| Economic Record | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | One medium and one tough referee! | 2015 | 03/28/16 |
| Economic Record | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | One thorough, one brief referee report | 2017 | 10/22/17 |
| Economic Record | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2014 | 08/17/15 | |
| Economic Systems | Pending | 4 | N/A | 2 | One helpful (though very demanding) report, the second so-so. | 2018 | 04/10/19 |
| Economic Systems | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Very good experience. Quick and professional handling by the editor. Two very useful referee reports. | 2011 | 12/13/13 |
| Economic Systems | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 2 | Ali Kutan is the associate editor, finally accepted the paper. Sometime he asks for favours from authors such as finding sponsors for special issues for other journals such as Emerging Markets Finance and Trade or ask authors to organise conferences and use the proceeding to cover the cost of the special issues. Yes, he can ask for odd things. In anyway, you need to be very careful when responding with him, he can easily upset you with a rejection | 2015 | 11/14/16 |
| Economic Systems | Accepted | 5 | 1 | 1 | Great experience. Comments were sharp and precise and resulted in a much better paper. After revision, paper accepted in a week. Would definitely submit here again. | 2015 | 02/22/16 |
| Economic Systems | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Referee report transformed the paper significantly. Very good experience. | 2015 | 06/18/16 |
| Economic Systems | Ref Reject | 4 | 4 | 2 | The associate Editor Ali Kutan has rejected the paper. According to him one referee is in favor but the other is not. I must say second reviewer report was 1 and a half line and in my view it is the most unscientific report I have ever seen. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. When he rejected the paper for the Economic Systems, he then asked me to submit the same paper to his journal "Emerging Markets Finance and Trade." Extremely bad experience with this journal | 2015 | 12/19/16 |
| Economic Systems | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 0 | 9 months to one ref report which was not helpful. Editor said all refs must agree for acceptance... but only one ref report provided! Terrible experience. | 2020 | 12/04/20 |
| Economic Theory | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editors keep delaying despite returned reports, seems to be a pattern with this journal. | 2018 | 10/18/18 |
| Economic Theory | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Economic Theory Bulletin. Great experience - referee reports really helped improve the paper. Also very fast. | 2014 | 05/06/15 |
| Economic Theory | Accepted | 4 | 6 | 1 | Very helpful referee report. It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. Editor was a little bit lazy as it took him two months after receiving the ref report to answer. Overall, a very fair process. | 2016 | 02/21/17 |
| Economic Theory | Accepted | 11 | 4 | 2 | 2016 | 01/15/18 | |
| Economic Theory | Accepted | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2013 | 11/03/14 | |
| Economic Theory | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Weird editor pushing for a change in the results. | 2011 | 02/04/13 |
| Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | One report useless, read only the first quarter of the paper. One very good report. Editor delayed a lot. Not recommended. | 2018 | 10/22/18 |
| Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience! | 2016 | 06/09/16 |
| Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Very unprofessional. Referee's only objection is flat out incorrect (i discussed report with colleagues in my field). No comments from the unknown handling editor. Seems as though they did not like the content and were looking for an excuse to reject. | 2015 | 06/26/15 |
| Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 6 | 6 | 1 | It took six months for a single referee report (of exactly one paragraph of comments). Referee clearly did not read paper closely because the bulk of his (limited) comments focused on why I don't address an issue that is addressed prominently in the introduction. | 2014 | 06/10/14 |
| Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Very unprofessional. Referee | 2015 | 06/26/15 |
| Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Very bad experience. From the abstract to the conclusion, we kept arguing like "A is not the main point, we should look at B." The referee's main criticism was like "they argued that A is the main point, which is weak. Instead, they should've looked at B." Pathetic... | 2018 | 12/05/18 |
| Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Three reports, one good report the other two average. Overall, fair process. | 2015 | 06/24/15 |
| Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | 2010 | 01/10/13 | |
| Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 14 | N/A | 1 | Good report, positive rec. from AE, but editor rejected without explanation. | 2011 | 11/06/13 |
| Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 11 | N/A | 3 | the referee reports are of good quality, but I think 11 month for a first response is too long | 2016 | 09/26/17 |
| Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Very quick response. Serious referee report, but without any helpful particular suggestion | 2013 | 05/17/13 |
| Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 08/02/13 | |
| Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2014 (the option is missing) | 2013 | 01/20/14 |
| Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast desk rejection. Appreciated. | 2021 | 09/25/21 |
| Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 07/30/13 | |
| Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 08/02/13 | |
| Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 04/04/13 | |
| Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! Suggested to send to another journal! oh they're good! | 2014 | 09/25/14 |
| Economica | Pending | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2014 | 08/22/14 | |
| Economica | Pending | 36 | N/A | 0 | Desk did not want to communicate at all. | 2010 | 04/29/15 |
| Economica | Accepted | 7 | 2 | 2 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economica | Accepted | 6 | 8 | 2 | 2014 | 02/13/16 | |
| Economica | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | a great and efficient journal | 2018 | 12/17/19 |
| Economica | Ref Reject | 13 | N/A | 0 | Waited 13 months to two mildly positive reports. But editor rejects. | 2014 | 02/11/16 |
| Economica | Ref Reject | 11 | N/A | 1 | it took them 11 months to reject with one referee report of about half a page. Amazing | 2019 | 03/10/19 |
| Economica | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Editor decided one returned report was sufficient, though this report did not provide any helpful comments | 2018 | 06/16/19 |
| Economica | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 3 | Two of three referees did not read the paper. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. No further comment from the editor. | 2011 | 02/11/15 |
| Economica | Ref Reject | 11 | N/A | 2 | 11 months for a rejection. My worst experience ever. Two referee reports, each was half a page with very general comments about the lack of contribution to a general readership. Editor was US-based and said that she likes the idea though! | 2014 | 10/10/15 |
| Economica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Just one report. Some ok comments. | 2018 | 07/17/18 |
| Economica | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | Seriously, avoid this journal. Reject with two referee reports, one gives constructive comments, one rejects with half a page report, saying the paper is not for a general readership. And the whole process took us 8 months. | 2019 | 10/21/19 |
| Economica | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Rejected with one report! | 2016 | 06/05/16 |
| Economica | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Referee rejected but with very exhaustive and interesting comments | 2018 | 12/29/18 |
| Economica | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | only one report, but it was fair and can help me to improve the paper | 2019 | 12/17/19 |
| Economica | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Reports are thoughtful and useful for revisions | 2014 | 07/26/14 |
| Economica | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | 2010 | 01/07/13 | |
| Economica | Desk Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | SIX MONTHS for a desk reject. Do not submit to this journal. | 2014 | 08/15/14 |
| Economica | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Garbage journal, not a real journal, avoid. | 2016 | 09/20/17 |
| Economica | Desk Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | It took 5 months to get a desk reject, with a polite letter from the editor that the paper would be a good fit for a field journal | 2021 | 09/21/21 |
| Economica | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | ridiculous | 2013 | 06/14/13 |
| Economica | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in one day. "Scope a bit too narrow" for Economica. The editor did point out a couple of interesting things. | 2020 | 06/09/20 |
| Economica | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected within 10 days. No letter from the editor. But I understand it may not have been a good fit. | 2017 | 11/06/17 |
| Economica | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Poorly managed. Theory in one field sent to AE in another field doing empirics. | 2013 | 02/20/13 |
| Economica | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Two days to desk reject, no comments, just boilerplate. I read on EJMR how clubby and unfortunately British this journal is, but never expected it to be true. Yep, it is. | 2018 | 09/10/18 |
| Economica | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economica | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection with no comments in 3 weeks. | 2015 | 02/11/16 |
| Economica | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Awful experience. Four months for a desk reject! | 2018 | 07/16/18 |
| Economics and Human Biology | Pending | 1 | 1 | 2 | Joerg Baten seems to be literally an idiot making me wonder how he got picked. He sends you an email that he carefully read the paper and then you follow up a day after asking him about a clarification and his response was that he did not remember. If this journal wants to publish high quality papers, it needs to pick someone better than Joerg Baten who actually reads the papers before he accepts/rejects, etc. Reflects really poorly on the journal to keep this guy. | 2016 | 09/10/17 |
| Economics and Human Biology | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). Overall good experience. Time to accept less than 1 year. | 2016 | 08/23/17 |
| Economics and Human Biology | Accepted | 1 | 2 | 2 | Very good experience. | 2016 | 07/12/17 |
| Economics and Human Biology | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | Quick and professionsl process. Reasonable comments from referees. | 2016 | 08/21/17 |
| Economics and Human Biology | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | One very good and one very weak report. Finished revision in 1 month and once resubmitted took them 2 weeks to accept. Good overall experience | 2021 | 07/24/21 |
| Economics and Human Biology | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2019 | 05/14/20 | |
| Economics and Human Biology | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Editor waited three months for the econd referee who did not respond. The only referee who respond wrote some nonsense without reading the paper. Worst experience so far in my career | 2020 | 08/21/20 |
| Economics and Human Biology | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 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. | 2016 | 07/14/16 |
| Economics and Human Biology | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quickest desk rejection ever experienced. 2 minutes passed between receiving editor name an receiving desk rejection. Don't think they even bothered reading the first page. | 2013 | 09/06/13 |
| Economics and Human Biology | Desk Reject | 0 | 1 | 0 | Spent a week rewriting the paper according to requests of the editor ("put figures in the end of the paper" and such), then got a desk reject. | 2013 | 11/27/13 |
| Economics and Human Biology | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 03/28/13 | |
| Economics and Philosophy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 14 days, form letter. | 2016 | 07/16/16 |
| Economics and Philosophy | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 05/13/13 | |
| Economics and Politics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Submitted July 2012, short empirical paper, still waiting for first response. | 2012 | 04/21/13 |
| Economics and Politics | Accepted | 10 | 4 | 2 | 2019 | 06/15/21 | |
| Economics and Politics | Accepted | 3 | 4 | 2 | Very useful reports, also doing some editing | 2010 | 01/04/13 |
| Economics and Politics | Accepted | 7 | 3 | 1 | Very useful report | 2013 | 09/17/14 |
| Economics and Politics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper | 2012 | 02/20/13 |
| Economics and Politics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | Referee had positive comments and suggested revise and resubmit, but editor rejected it. | 2014 | 12/06/14 |
| Economics and Politics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Disappointing referee: a few useful comments, but mostly low-grade and somewhat hostile | 2011 | 02/21/13 |
| Economics and Politics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Useful comments from knowledgeable reviewers. | 2020 | 11/22/21 |
| Economics Bulletin | Pending | 4 | N/A | 2 | Invited to revise and resubmit the paper. Two referees made great reviews and very detailed comments. Good experience. | 2018 | 05/29/18 |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Associate Editor and the reviewer provided excellent feedback | 2016 | 08/18/17 |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | Very fast and easy, but useless reports and editors (which is what I wanted for a quick worthless pub) | 2012 | 11/06/13 |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor accepted the article within one week. | 2014 | 04/30/14 |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Very fast good report | 2013 | 10/18/13 |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | The referees made good points. Conley is a very nice Editor. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. I resubmitted in January, and the paper was accepted with minor revisions in March. A very positive experience for a filler publication. | 2018 | 03/06/19 |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | the website was hacked...the report was good, and the associate editor is very nice | 2014 | 04/22/15 |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 10 | N/A | 3 | The first round took too long (~10 months). The editor said there was issues with finding referees. The revised submission was accepted within a month. | 2019 | 08/14/20 |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Editor picked reasonable comments, asked to take into account suggestions, accepted the paper after the referees agreed that what I did is reasonable. | 2015 | 11/16/15 |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | The editor was very helpful. | 2014 | 04/28/15 |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | Smooth process, a bit too much work for this journal. But editor is very good | 2020 | 01/04/21 |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 1 | Great experience. Conley is a tremendous editor. A true scholar and a gentleman. | 2019 | 09/16/19 |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2017 | 01/08/18 | |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 0 | N/A | 1 | Conley is a good, fair editor. | 2016 | 07/25/17 |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Reasonable comments from the referee, extremely fast and efficient process. | 2017 | 08/04/18 |
| Economics Bulletin | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Very fast process. Poor report but good comments from the associate editor | 2011 | 05/01/14 |
| Economics Bulletin | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Referee does not understand the purpose of the paper, clearly not a specialist of the field ; published elsewhere | 2012 | 10/31/14 |
| Economics Bulletin | Ref Reject | 20 | N/A | 3 | 20 months for this type of journal is super long. | 2020 | 01/24/22 |
| Economics Bulletin | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | my paper was rejected but great comments on how this paper can be improved are made. Great experience. | 2021 | 02/07/22 |
| Economics Bulletin | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 2016 | 02/03/18 | |
| Economics Bulletin | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | One referee report with no constructive comments. Waste of time | 2010 | 12/05/13 |
| Economics Bulletin | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Ok process, but referees either did not read the paper carefully or were inexpert in the field | 2018 | 06/16/19 |
| Economics Bulletin | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | 4 months for a letter w/o referee report. Bigger joke than the article I sent them. -> Toilet. | 2017 | 03/31/18 |
| Economics Bulletin | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2019 | 12/30/19 | |
| Economics Bulletin | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick desk reject. | 2022 | 01/22/22 |
| Economics Letters | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 12 months and waiting. No report yet. Multiple inquiries with a response: "once the reviews are completed, the editor will make a decision". I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know... | 2015 | 03/29/16 |
| Economics Letters | Pending | 4 | N/A | 1 | 2015 | 09/09/15 | |
| Economics Letters | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 12 months and waiting. No report yet. Multiple inquiries with a response: "once the reviews are completed, the editor will make a decision". I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know... | 2015 | 03/29/16 |
| Economics Letters | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2020 | 10/19/20 | |
| Economics Letters | Pending | 1 | 2 | 1 | Easy Process. Very Fast. 1 Month from Submission to a very positive R&R | 2015 | 04/17/15 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Costas Meghir was editor. Waited about a month for the first decision, just a few days for the (very minor) revisions. Good experience. | 2016 | 01/24/17 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2018 | 03/04/19 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Less than 3 weeks for the first responses (major R&R) then accepted in less than a week. | 2016 | 12/31/16 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2013 | 08/09/13 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2015 | 11/21/15 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 3 | 4 | 1 | Editor accepted the paper after we made some modifications recommended by the referee. | 2018 | 08/16/19 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 month for R&R, 1 week for acceptance after revision submitted. Great experience. | 2013 | 09/19/15 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Excellent experience. | 2016 | 09/06/16 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Fantastic experience: fast and very good comments | 2018 | 02/14/19 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | N/A | 1 | Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response | 2014 | 03/15/14 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Pretty quick. Serrano handled it. | 2011 | 04/12/13 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 1 | Very quick and efficient. | 2014 | 11/18/14 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | First round took 2 months. Accepted two weeks after r&r. Pretty good experience. | 2017 | 11/15/17 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 0 | N/A | 1 | Same referee as for a previous submission to a high-ranked journal. As we addressed all issues in between and it better fitted EL, it was accepted without revision. | 2022 | 02/17/22 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Serrano handled the manuscript. Two lines ref report. Fast and friendly. | 2014 | 01/16/15 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2014 | 07/29/14 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 R&Rs but very good feedback. | 2020 | 09/21/20 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 4 | N/A | 1 | 2007 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 36 | N/A | 0 | 2008 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Accepted as is. Awesome. | 2018 | 11/29/18 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 0 | 1 | 1 | faster than the speed of light | 2019 | 07/01/19 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2012 | 07/27/14 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 0 | N/A | 1 | Super fast handling by Pro. J.E. Harrington and the anonymous reviewer. 7 days from first submission to minor revision. Resubmitted within the same day. Got accepted in three days. 10 days in total!!! | 2018 | 11/08/18 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2014 | 07/29/14 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Fast. Two weeks for R&R. One week to accept. Entire process takes 1 month. | 2015 | 03/05/15 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 1 | Less than two months for very minor revision request. Resubmitted in 2 days, accepted after resubmission in 10 days. | 2016 | 01/27/17 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Good experience. With my 4-6 data observations (different journals), EL is definitely the most efficient journal | 2018 | 08/28/18 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 0 | N/A | 1 | one week to accepted with minor changes. accepted immediately after minor revision. Super efficient handling by Prof. Sarte. Best experience ever. | 2018 | 07/04/18 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | The editor was good. Revision accepted after one day. Reviewers seem to be very well acquainted with my research area (health). | 2015 | 08/30/15 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2011 | 01/13/13 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 0 | Fasstest acceptation ever after R&R: 1 day! | 2012 | 01/15/13 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2019 | 05/26/19 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | Fast response. Good report as well. | 2012 | 02/15/13 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 2 | 1 | very efficient | 2018 | 06/26/19 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2012 | 12/21/12 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | very quick. ref asks more robustness check | 2016 | 08/30/16 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Good referee report and very efficient editor. Overall- great experience. | 2013 | 03/02/14 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | The editor was good. Revision accepted after one day. Reviewers seem to be very well acquainted with my research area (health). | 2015 | 08/30/15 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2009 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 21 | N/A | 1 | 2008 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2015 | 12/06/15 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Very fast and the submission fee is relatively cheap and even cheaper for grad students. One of the best outlet for phd students | 2015 | 08/13/15 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. We were asked to collect additional data for our existing experimental treatments to increase our statistical power. We did. Our results didn't change. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. Very pleasant experience! | 2013 | 11/28/13 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | one referee and very good commets. | 2020 | 08/27/20 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Excellent | 2016 | 12/07/16 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Seems the process is very efficient with the new editorial board | 2013 | 04/20/13 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2010 | 09/18/14 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Fantastic experience: fast and very good comments | 2018 | 02/16/19 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Super fast review. Referee was perceptive and pointed out serious flaws in the first draft. Accepted version was greatly improved. Whole process super quick. Great outcome. | 2018 | 10/01/18 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2012 | 09/30/14 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 8 | N/A | 1 | 2008 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Good process | 2014 | 01/09/15 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. We did. Our claims were supported. Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. Very quick process! | 2013 | 11/28/13 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2010 | 02/13/13 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Good experience. Quick first response with major r&r. Two days between handing in the revision and acceptance. | 2012 | 01/22/14 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Fast review but very difficult comments. Too us more than a month to revise and still had doubts. I spent less time and less effort revising 30 pages papers in other similar ranked journals than in EL | 2020 | 02/12/21 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2012 | 12/21/12 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2012 | 01/18/13 | |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | Excellent process and editor provided useful comments and guidance | 2018 | 06/16/19 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Great experience. | 2020 | 10/28/20 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 1 | N/A | 1 | Very pleasant experience – very quick and the report professional | 2015 | 03/26/16 |
| Economics Letters | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 1 | Very useful report | 2015 | 10/30/15 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | 2015 | 08/19/15 | |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough. | 2014 | 01/16/15 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Editorial board review and then rejection. They should just ask me $60. | 2014 | 12/05/14 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Really quick response and decent referee report. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. The paper got rejected anyways. | 2015 | 04/03/15 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | I waited six weeks for an inaccurate, one paragraph referee report? One where the only material comment has a grammatical error that makes understanding it difficult? Won't be doing that again... | 2020 | 06/22/20 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2006 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Actually, it was a Reject and Resubmit because the editor liked the paper, but the reviewer was really harsh and not really understood the paper. | 2021 | 05/24/21 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 07/28/13 | |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 1 | 1 | 1 | Less than two weeks from submission to editorial decision. The referee report was very poor. Very short and no relevant comments. | 2017 | 06/21/18 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2-pages report, few suggestions. Simply put, the reviewer does not believe in my results (simulations from calibrated macroeconomic model). He/she states that a particular model delivers a set of results, although I show that it does not. | 2018 | 01/03/19 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | 5 and 1/2 months to get a 2 line report. | 2020 | 09/14/20 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Very fast with constructive reviews. | 2019 | 01/08/20 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | 2 | 1 | At least response in 1.5 month. Report is in reasonable quality. | 2014 | 08/22/14 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2014 | 05/22/14 | |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Quick. Very low quality report. | 2015 | 11/20/15 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | One useless referee report claiming that we did not make robustness checks in a journal of 2000 letters! However we had make all of the referee's suggestions and the outcome was not positive. The editor was not helpful at all | 2016 | 09/22/16 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | "Referee report"... Biggest joke on Earth!! | 2015 | 09/18/15 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Very fast; useful, reasonably positive report despite rejection | 2020 | 10/20/20 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Process was a complete disgrace. Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. But no referee reports were supplied to me. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. Submission fee not refunded. Absolutely pathetic. | 2013 | 05/31/13 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Useless referee report. | 2016 | 09/11/16 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit. | 2013 | 12/05/13 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | The referee did not read the first sentence of the paper and was not familiar with the literature. Probably just a grad student who could only understand calculations | 2020 | 03/12/20 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Fast process, but very poor reviewer report. | 2017 | 02/22/18 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Constructive referee report; said needed more robustness checks, but difficult in word limit. | 2016 | 09/15/16 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Editor rejected the paper based on the decision of board of editor. Paper was never sent to the reviewers as per the email. | 2013 | 10/03/15 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Referee report useless. Editor not helpful at all. | 2014 | 12/02/14 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Lazy report. The first note of the referee claimed that I didn't do something I clearly did. The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. | 2017 | 09/27/17 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2013 | 09/17/14 | |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | I do not think that the referee understood my paper. Seemed not to like the idea of the paper without actually reading it. A disappointment. | 2017 | 08/31/17 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | Efficient and fair. One stern but very helpful referee report (five pages, competent and extremely detailed) in two weeks. Almost happy. | 2015 | 08/20/18 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | A long wait but not very helpful comments. | 2016 | 06/26/16 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 16 | N/A | 1 | Terrible single line report from editor (after 16 months of waiting). Pretty sure the editor didn't even read the paper. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. | 2010 | 10/25/14 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Extensive, constructive and mildly positive ref report. Made paper better. AE rejected without commenting on referee report | 2017 | 11/19/18 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | At least a quick report with one good comment that can help to improve the paper, but with the other points highlighted by the referee were discussed in the paper | 2018 | 04/26/18 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | The paper was not sent to the referee but instead the editor said it was reviewed by the editorial board. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. | 2013 | 07/08/14 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 0 | Reject due to the non-response by the referee | 2020 | 02/24/21 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | I want my money back ! Fast and uninformative. But at least fast. | 2014 | 02/28/14 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Reasonable referee report. Although the suggested changes would have made the paper way too long for an EL pub. | 2019 | 01/20/20 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | The paper was not sent to the referee but instead the editor said it was reviewed by the editorial board. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. | 2013 | 07/08/14 |
| Economics Letters | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Really quick response and decent referee report. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. The paper got rejected anyways. | 2015 | 04/03/15 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection after 8 days. According to the editor, the paper has some merit, but is too specialized for EL. He recommended me to send it to a more specialized field journal. At least they are quick! | 2015 | 08/04/15 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Baltagi rejected in 4 days, no comments | 2012 | 12/21/12 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected in 4 days, editor said work was done net resting but not broad enough. | 2016 | 06/02/16 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful) | 2015 | 12/01/15 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Long and slow desk reject. Editor mentioned the wrong econometric model in email making it clear it was not read. | 2019 | 06/22/19 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!) | 2015 | 03/15/16 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected within two weeks. A bit slow for a 2000 words paper | 2017 | 08/11/17 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected by Sarte in 3 days without comments. Too narrow-minded editor. | 2018 | 09/21/18 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list | 2015 | 02/26/16 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | 2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor. | 2018 | 10/15/18 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | The contribution of the paper is not enough for EL! | 2014 | 11/25/14 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | It took the editor 3 months to write two paragraphs and reject. The editor is not related to my field, but also decided not to get an expert's opinion. Will never submit again. | 2018 | 04/15/19 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in two weeks. | 2017 | 08/21/17 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2 weeks | 2015 | 05/26/15 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 2 | 2 | 1 | Referee seemed have little idea about the field or didn't read my 7 page paper. Full of informative/wrong comments. After R&R, the referee required one more round of revision. Desk rejected. | 2014 | 04/29/15 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 week for desk reject | 2015 | 08/19/15 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | desk reject with no helpful comments | 2018 | 10/30/18 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Rather slow desk reject. Pretty average speed compared to other journals. Not being up to claimed "high-speed dissemination" standards. | 2019 | 08/03/19 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after 23 hours. Generic comment of the editor. | 2015 | 07/03/18 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2017 | 10/20/17 | |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Baltagi desk rejected it in 2 days for being lack of novelty. | 2021 | 08/30/21 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Dest rejected within 1 day after submission. I felt as if 65$ has evaporated from my pocket. I published my article in a very decent journal later. Very bad experience. | 2016 | 07/09/16 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 10 days for desk rejection decision. contribution is not enough. useless comments from editor. | 2019 | 04/10/19 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Paper desk rejected in 4 days. Very fast process but no comment from the Associate Editor. | 2018 | 10/02/18 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Note good/detailed enough for EL | 2018 | 10/29/18 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 3 weeks for a desk reject. The reason was that the | 2020 | 03/10/20 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | 1 | 0 | Andrew Samwick rejected within 2 days, Topic is too speacialized for EL | 2014 | 09/03/14 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | Couple of comments why the paper does not fit (relatively reasonable). Fairly long wait though. | 2014 | 02/13/15 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk reject after 4 days. | 2020 | 08/27/20 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 week for the desk reject decision | 2013 | 02/09/13 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rapid desk rejection, with fair comments and advice from editor | 2018 | 06/16/19 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | The paper is a solid analysis but does not sufficiently add to our understanding. The dynamic is well known and its implications are rather straightforward in this context. As a theoretical contribution, it is not sufficient for Economics Letters. | 2022 | 01/22/22 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejection reason shows Meghir did not read the paper, bad editor dull comments | 2017 | 12/03/17 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Pretty clear that whoever desk rejected didn't even read (or couldn't understand) the paper. They just pocketed the submission fee. This journal is a scam. | 2021 | 11/27/21 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Sent it to EL on Christmas Eve, got the desk reject from Gomez right after Christmas on 26th for not enough contributions | 2020 | 12/28/20 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | 2018 | 03/06/18 | |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in two days. Editor misunderstood the findings, complained didn't understand the Y variable (maybe ease up on the word limit then). No refund. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. | 2019 | 10/21/19 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2007 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 2 days. | 2015 | 12/31/16 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject two days after I submitted the manuscript. The comment by the editor in charge was helpful. Good experience. | 2021 | 09/02/21 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject within two days. Results not important enough to a broad audience. | 2014 | 06/27/14 |
| Economics Letters | Desk Reject | 1 | 1 | 0 | Costas Meghir responses all submissions. However, they want to reject whatever you want. This journal is a bit hell to make it attractive to authors in order to get their money easily. | 2019 | 08/09/19 |
| Economics of Education Review | Pending | 2 | N/A | 2 | Eight weeks to get two very high-quality reports. | 2020 | 12/01/20 |
| Economics of Education Review | Accepted | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2012 | 12/21/12 | |
| Economics of Education Review | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Great experience | 2018 | 09/28/19 |
| Economics of Education Review | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Relatively Quick Process. One good quality report suggesting minor revisions after 1 month. After submitting revisions, 1 month until final decision to accept with no other edits. | 2015 | 06/24/15 |
| Economics of Education Review | Accepted | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2017 | 12/25/18 | |
| Economics of Education Review | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Smooth process | 2015 | 06/27/16 |
| Economics of Education Review | Accepted | 7 | 4 | 2 | 2012 | 03/12/13 | |
| Economics of Education Review | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | Great experience | 2016 | 06/02/18 |
| Economics of Education Review | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Two useful reports. One of them was very detailed. Another one was sharp. R&R only one round; after submitting the revised version, only waited for six days until final acceptance. | 2017 | 03/15/18 |
| Economics of Education Review | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 1 | The reviewer and the editor did not understand the paper. It ended up being published in a higher ranked journal. Will probably not be using this journal again. | 2014 | 05/28/15 |
| Economics of Education Review | Ref Reject | 4 | 1 | 2 | First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. reports. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. Recommended rejection. | 2013 | 12/10/14 |
| Economics of Education Review | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Only one report, no useful comments | 2012 | 04/29/13 |
| Economics of Education Review | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 1 | extremely long wait, and a really poor referee report | 2018 | 03/08/19 |
| Economics of Education Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. | 2013 | 12/13/13 |
| Economics of Education Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Not fair. | 2016 | 09/07/16 |
| Economics of Education Review | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | 1 report, minor issues, rejected. not a fair process | 2013 | 12/21/13 |
| Economics of Education Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Economics of Governance | Accepted | 8 | 3 | 2 | 2016 | 09/02/17 | |
| Economics of Governance | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Long wait, decision was communicated with a delay of 3 months after reports had been received. One very positive and helpful report, one negative report. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision. | 2013 | 08/01/14 |
| Economics of Transition | Pending | 5 | N/A | 1 | 2013 | 08/22/13 | |
| Economics of Transition | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2012 | 09/15/14 | |
| Economics of Transition | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Excellent review process. | 2016 | 10/31/16 |
| Economics of Transition | Accepted | 9 | 4 | 2 | The editor is very good with excellent referee reports. Slow but good experience overall. | 2017 | 08/21/18 |
| Economics of Transition | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Excellent referee report. | 2017 | 02/07/18 |
| Economics of Transition | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2013 | 06/18/14 | |
| Economics of Transition | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | 2015 | 04/20/16 | |
| Economics of Transition | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 12/07/14 | |
| Education Economics | Pending | 3 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 02/11/18 | |
| Education Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Fast and fair. Two useful reports (one with detailed but helpful suggestions), good editor. | 2020 | 12/21/21 |
| Education Economics | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2011 | 02/13/13 | |
| Education Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Excellent review process. Fast and efficient. Good referee reports. Editor and co-editor are extremely nice and supportive. | 2019 | 03/14/21 |
| Education Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Quite superficial referee reports. | 2013 | 09/24/13 |
| Education Economics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Very slow. Referee reports were very brief and contained little in the way of substantive comments. | 2013 | 02/14/14 |
| Emerging Markets Finance and Trade | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 3 | Very professional...the referee reports were fine but rather tough given the quality of the journal | 2011 | 12/13/13 |
| Emerging Markets Finance and Trade | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Very efficient process | 2021 | 03/12/22 |
| Emerging Markets Finance and Trade | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 3 | Very detailed and helpful reports. | 2015 | 11/03/16 |
| Emerging Markets Finance and Trade | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Great Experience | 2012 | 03/08/14 |
| Emerging Markets Finance and Trade | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. Good experience and good editorial team. | 2015 | 04/16/16 |
| Emerging Markets Finance and Trade | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Two very good referee reports. Much better than overal reputation of journal | 2015 | 02/05/16 |
| Emerging Markets Finance and Trade | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Think one more time before sending here. Bad referee reports. 150$ is quite a lot of money. | 2016 | 07/09/16 |
| Emerging Markets Finance and Trade | Ref Reject | 6 | 12 | 3 | 3 rounds, all comments addressed, rejected because 1 reviewer did not read the last version. very disappointing | 2018 | 10/16/20 |
| Emerging Markets Review | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Nice editor | 2014 | 10/25/14 |
| Emerging Markets Review | Accepted | 1 | N/A | 0 | Transfer from another Elsevier journal. Elsevier is terrible, screwed up the transfer so took over a month to end up on editor's desk. Editor took two weeks to unconditionally accept. Will submit here again definitely but hate Elsevier so much. | 2019 | 03/06/19 |
| Emerging Markets Review | Ref Reject | 8 | 2 | 2 | Quite slow response for a mid-tier journal. Rejected and offered transfer that was very helpful. | 2018 | 08/03/19 |
| Emerging Markets Review | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 1 | Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. Mostly generic comments. Not worth the time wasted. | 2017 | 12/15/18 |
| Emerging Markets Review | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 01/22/15 | |
| Emerging Markets Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. Maybe small sample made it untouchable? | 2016 | 04/24/17 |
| Emerging Markets Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick desk rejection from the Editor (about a week). He clearly did not read the paper and wrote a pretty much standard rejection that had nothing to do with the paper. Very clubby journal. 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. | 2019 | 01/14/20 |
| Emerging Markets Review | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | 2017 | 07/07/17 | |
| Empirica | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 04/16/13 | |
| Empirica | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | Do not send your papers to this journal. It took them 10 months to say anything and at the end even though the referees asked for revisions and were positive the editor rejected the paper. It is definitely not worth the long wait! | 2014 | 06/29/15 |
| Empirical Economics | Pending | 12 | N/A | 0 | Manuscript was withdrawn - editor had assigned referees within 3 months of submission but then these were apparently not forthcoming | 2018 | 06/16/19 |
| Empirical Economics | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 2 | Hostile report stating "I do not belive your assumptions", editor ignored it | 2012 | 11/01/15 |
| Empirical Economics | Accepted | 6 | 6 | 2 | long waiting time. one ok, one very short and superficial referee report. the editor was helpful and nice though. | 2011 | 02/18/13 |
| Empirical Economics | Accepted | 16 | 1 | 2 | Very slow process but happy to get accepted. | 2016 | 09/25/18 |
| Empirical Economics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | Good experience. 1 good Referee and good Editor. Recommend. | 2015 | 10/21/16 |
| Empirical Economics | Accepted | 6 | 3 | 2 | Good reports. | 2011 | 07/30/13 |
| Empirical Economics | Accepted | 6 | 5 | 2 | The latex formatting at the end was the most painful part. Otherwise, efficient process, decent reports. | 2018 | 09/10/19 |
| Empirical Economics | Accepted | 6 | 5 | 2 | Two good referee reports though the review process is A bit slow. | 2016 | 09/13/17 |
| Empirical Economics | Accepted | 6 | 5 | 2 | 2014 | 10/25/15 | |
| Empirical Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Process ended after 1 report. Comments dubious at best. Editor claimed an expert in the field reviewed the paper while the referee admitted in his first sentence of the report that he is not. | 2016 | 04/25/17 |
| Empirical Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | 6 | 2 | Initial response for R&R was quite fast, but the second response after the resubmission took quite a long time, and it seems that the paper was just sitting at the editor's desk for more than a month before they were assigned back to the referees. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. | 2015 | 01/07/16 |
| Empirical Economics | Ref Reject | 12 | 12 | 2 | The reviews were short and gave some good feedback. It seems to me that the editor rejected based on how well the article was written, rather than the substance of the work. | 2020 | 01/11/22 |
| Empirical Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. But the editor (Kunst) decided to "follow the referee's advice to reject your submission", even though there was no indication of such a recommendation in the RR. Actually, it was overall positive. Waste of time. | 2015 | 03/22/16 |
| Empirical Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Good reports. | 2016 | 06/06/16 |
| Empirical Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Although our paper is rejected by the reviewer, I would be very happy to read the referee report. The referee must be some leading scholar in the field and I just wanna say thanks to him/her. I wish my coauthors would not be too sad being rejected. | 2019 | 07/12/19 |
| Empirical Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | 1 | 2 | After revision was done the AE decided to reject without sending to referees! Waste of time. | 2015 | 05/03/16 |
| Empirical Economics | Ref Reject | 12 | N/A | 2 | Unacceptable waiting time. One absolutely incompetent referee. Second referee made some useful suggestions. | 2017 | 01/27/18 |
| Empirical Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 04/12/13 | |
| Empirical Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal. | 2012 | 02/01/13 |
| Empirical Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 3 weeks. | 2013 | 08/13/13 |
| Empirical Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 3 days. The editor prefers state-of-the-art methods rather than good ideas. | 2021 | 02/18/21 |
| Energy Economics | Pending | 12 | N/A | 0 | One year since submission, no replies to my queries... shitty journal | 2019 | 05/14/20 |
| Energy Economics | Pending | 10 | N/A | 0 | 10 month without any reaction from the editor. No response to requests. Will not consider again. | 2019 | 03/24/20 |
| Energy Economics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Almost one year later from submission, have no answer about my paper. The status are always the same "under review". Also sent some emails to the editors but have no replies. | 2015 | 03/17/16 |
| Energy Economics | Accepted | 4 | 6 | 3 | Overall fair process. Three high quality reports that have helped to improve the paper. | 2017 | 04/26/19 |
| Energy Economics | Accepted | 8 | 6 | 1 | 2011 | 03/25/13 | |
| Energy Economics | Accepted | 8 | 2 | 2 | 2013 | 12/27/14 | |
| Energy Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Although other comments on this journal say that the review process is long, I had very different experience. I got two rounds of R&R. At every round, it took them only 2 months to respond back. | 2015 | 03/18/16 |
| Energy Economics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | good reports. fair process. | 2013 | 06/13/14 |
| Energy Economics | Accepted | 6 | 2 | 2 | Very efficient process. One good report and the other mediocre. The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. I will submit again to this rising journal | 2015 | 10/06/16 |
| Energy Economics | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2019 | 10/02/19 | |
| Energy Economics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | high level and very helpful referee reports | 2015 | 04/01/18 |
| Energy Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. 3 sentences total, six months. | 2015 | 04/08/16 |
| Energy Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | 2 | 3 | Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. 2 referees were positive throughout the process, one was an outright acceptance. Overall, the decision was not fair. | 2013 | 09/02/14 |
| Energy Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | 2 | 3 | Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. 2 referees were positive throughout the process, one was an outright acceptance. Overall, the decision was not fair. | 2013 | 09/02/14 |
| Energy Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2 Reports. 1 Referee provided useful comments that improved the paper. Other, did not read the paper carefully yet rejected. | 2014 | 10/28/15 |
| Energy Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Two reports (half-page each) citing minor issues. Editor rejected. Unfair decision. | 2018 | 07/31/18 |
| Energy Journal | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 5 | The editor Adonis Yatchew was very helpfull and efficient. Our paper went through four rounds and finally accepted after one year of its submission. | 2015 | 10/05/16 |
| Energy Journal | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 rounds of r&r. Only have issues with one of the reviewers. Took a year for the paper to get accepted. | 2018 | 10/12/19 |
| Energy Journal | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 4 | Very tedious review process | 2010 | 01/09/13 |
| Energy Journal | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 3 | Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. | 2018 | 02/08/19 |
| Energy Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Very good experience. The referees gave great feedback to improve the paper | 2015 | 06/21/15 |
| Energy Journal | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 08/09/13 | |
| Energy Journal | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Good comments from 2 referees, the other did not appear to have read the paper well. improved paper based on comments. | 2014 | 06/30/15 |
| Energy Journal | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | All the referees understood what I did in great detail. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. Two of them suggested a possible solution. In all the rejection was fair. I'll definetly will submit again. | 2016 | 12/27/16 |
| Energy Journal | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Very poor referee reports. Extremely outdated econometric "suggestions" and an overall lack of understanding. One referee clearly did not read the paper, while the other one did not understand the meaning of control variables. At least it was fast... | 2016 | 10/17/16 |
| Energy Policy | Pending | 10 | 6 | 2 | 2010 | 01/11/13 | |
| Energy Policy | Pending | 5 | N/A | 0 | 6 months and no feedback from the journal whtsoever. Will not consider it again. | 2016 | 12/02/16 |
| Energy Policy | Pending | 4 | N/A | 2 | R&R after 3-4 months. Quite fast I'd say, but comments were simple. The paper is in between energy and finance, and the referees were more knowledgable of Energy than Finance, where our approach is more standard I'd say | 2020 | 12/28/20 |
| Energy Policy | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Which editor handles the paper mattered. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. | 2014 | 09/02/14 |
| Energy Policy | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Which editor handles the paper mattered. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons. | 2014 | 09/02/14 |
| Energy Policy | Accepted | 8 | 5 | 2 | Two reports: one good, one bad | 2015 | 08/08/16 |
| Energy Policy | Ref Reject | 6 | 2 | 2 | Totally automated review process; one referee carps even with demonstrably invalid reason and you have no right even to contact the editor. Would not bother again. | 2013 | 10/10/14 |
| Energy Policy | Ref Reject | 8 | 3 | 2 | 2012 | 09/13/13 | |
| Energy Policy | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | This journal is completely a piece of junk. A UK guy handles my paper and give me a desk rejection after 3 months. Never deal with stupid journal anymore. | 2021 | 06/17/21 |
| Energy Policy | Desk Reject | 2 | 2 | 0 | Waited 2 months for the paper to be assigned to an editor. Paper got desk rejected shortly after. | 2015 | 03/07/16 |
| Energy Policy | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after 40 days. No specific comment from the editor. | 2020 | 02/18/21 |
| Energy Policy | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after 40 days. | 2020 | 12/26/20 |
| Environment and Development Economics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Awful experience. Very inefficient handling of the work. | 2015 | 09/01/15 |
| Environment, Development, and Sustainability | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Revision accepted for publication in one week. | 2014 | 11/04/14 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Pending | 6 | N/A | 2 | 6 months to receive half-assed & useless referee reports and request for major revisions. I declined the offer to resubmit. | 2015 | 05/05/16 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Accepted | 7 | 2 | 3 | I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. Every time I'm impressed by how precise the reviews and suggestions are. A drawback is that it takes time. | 2016 | 09/26/17 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Accepted | 7 | 4 | 2 | 2018 | 02/06/20 | |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Accepted | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2007 | 01/09/13 | |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 rounds (1 major R and 1 minor R), one report each time, very fast acceptance after minor R round (less than a month) | 2012 | 10/01/13 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 2 | Fast and to the point reports with reasonable requests for r&r | 2021 | 09/04/21 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 02/06/20 | |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | One Referee wrote nonsense, the other was good, the editor added nonsense. | 2011 | 02/15/13 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Useful comments from the editor who had to stand in for the unresponsive second referee. Would submit again. | 2014 | 06/08/15 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Ref Reject | 13 | N/A | 1 | Worst experience ever. The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. | 2017 | 12/18/18 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 1 | 2017 | 04/28/19 | |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very fast desk reject; | 2013 | 11/25/13 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 08/09/13 | |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | 2.5 months to desk reject. Suggested Ecological Economics. | 2018 | 12/26/18 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 6 weeks for a desk reject. It seems from this website that this in not uncommon for this journal. Boo! | 2015 | 05/05/16 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | desk reject after 4 months | 2016 | 04/23/19 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | 3 months for a summary reject by the editor. Slow as hell. | 2015 | 05/05/16 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Three months for an "out of scope" decision. Three months. | 2015 | 05/04/16 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 6 weeks to desk reject. | 2014 | 07/29/15 |
| Environmental and Resource Economics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Showed as "awaiting editor assignment" for three months, then a desk reject. THREE MONTHS! | 2019 | 11/07/19 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 informed reports + very detailed comments and guidance by the AE. E | 2015 | 03/01/17 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 3 | Two detailled and useful reports, one irrelevant. Constructive feedback from AE. Fast editorial process. | 2020 | 07/07/21 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 1 | 4 | 1 | very efficient. great experience. the journal is recovering. | 2017 | 01/12/18 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 1 | 2 | 2 | Tough, but fair referees. Good comments, helped improve the paper | 2013 | 11/28/13 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 3 | Decent experience; overall fast, fair and constructive. One highly vauable report; one okay-ish, one less useful. | 2018 | 11/19/18 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Very good experience all around. Very fast, and really high-quality referee reports, plus the AE's feedback. Tough revisions, but very fair. The manuscript improved substantially as well, thanks to the reports. Two years ago, I had a different paper rejected by EER, with two good referee reports and an AE negative about it. That was also a very fast and good experience, though not the outcome I had hoped. Highly recommend this journal for a paper that wouldn't make it to top 5. | 2018 | 09/15/19 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 3 | Quick handling, competent (positive) reports | 2013 | 11/28/13 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 3 | Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. The journal is likely to go up again. | 2018 | 11/17/18 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Though reports with constructive comments | 2018 | 11/30/19 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | very good. | 2012 | 10/04/15 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Tough and fair refereeing. Very professional editors | 2017 | 12/07/17 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | One very useful report from a critical referee, and one mediocre. Tough referee was going through three rounds but eventually accepted. Pretty smooth process, with Eric Leeper being very kind and helpful. | 2014 | 02/02/15 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 months to R&R; 2 weeks for second round; 1 week for final acceptance | 2012 | 03/13/13 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Really lucky experience. | 2014 | 02/04/15 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Very helpful referee reports. Professional editor. | 2013 | 11/20/14 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2011 | 02/06/13 | |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 3 | Very tough but very useful report! Very good experience! | 2014 | 01/29/15 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | One report was very poor and full of bsh*t while the other was good. | 2020 | 09/23/21 |
| European Economic Review | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | Very good experience. Useful but demanding referee reports. | 2018 | 05/29/19 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Quick response, two spiteful ref reports | 2015 | 06/29/15 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 4 | four reports. 2.5 are very positive. AE decided to reject! Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING. | 2015 | 11/09/15 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 1 | The editor received the report within a month. She admitted having forgotten about it until 8 months later and sent us a rejection. The referee was ideologically opposed to our paper more than anything else. | 2021 | 10/17/21 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Waste of time and money. Editor sat on completed reports for 2 months to give a two sentence rejection response. | 2017 | 09/20/17 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Alright report. Not a long wait. | 2018 | 01/28/19 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 02/04/13 | |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | useless reports, unfair editor | 2021 | 07/20/21 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Expensive. Two OK referee reports. | 2016 | 12/09/16 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Horrible treatment. Unbased rejection after more than six months with mediocre reports and editorial justification. | 2021 | 07/18/21 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. | 2017 | 01/10/18 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | One positive report, one mixed and one negative. However comments from the negative one are the most detailled and helpful. Nice editor message. | 2019 | 03/18/19 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 02/18/13 | |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | fast response but low quality referee reports | 2017 | 10/01/17 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | fast and reliable journal. very good comments | 2016 | 08/31/17 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Five weeks, submission to rejection. Of course we don't like the reports, or editor's comments, but there is some helpful stuff. | 2017 | 08/07/17 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 01/11/13 | |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Editor sat for two months on completed referee report and rejected without adding any comments. | 2018 | 10/01/19 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | One of the referee reports was sloppy, showing inaccurate reading | 2011 | 07/30/13 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 1 | The editor received the report within a month. She admitted having forgotten about it until 8 months later and sent us a rejection. The referee was ideologically opposed to our paper more than anything else. | 2021 | 10/21/21 |
| European Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Fast. No complaints | 2018 | 12/05/18 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | In case of desk rejection, they should return the submission fee. | 2014 | 09/08/14 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in less than a week. No evidence anyone read the paper, even though they probably have the highest submission fee among econ journals. | 2017 | 11/19/17 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject within 1 day. Handled by an editor who is not in the same field. | 2017 | 06/18/17 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in a few hours with very impersonal email. High submission fees. To avoid | 2014 | 09/08/14 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Very bad experience. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. | 2011 | 01/10/13 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2 days desk reject | 2014 | 04/09/14 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 1 week. Focus too narrow for a general interest journal. The associate editor however provided some useful comments which helped us improve the paper. | 2019 | 07/25/19 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | "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." Reasonable response. Appreciate quick reject. | 2016 | 12/12/16 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Rejected on pretty poor grounds by an associate editor. Maybe paper is not good enough, but the "report" was not convincing either. At least it was fast. | 2014 | 02/02/15 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. Didn't even quite read the rewritten paper. Copied and pasted the comments, some of which were not even relevant for the current version of the the paper. Avoid this journal. | 2016 | 12/19/16 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Manuscript number assigned at 10AM, rejected by 7PM. No refund. 12.5 euro (exclusive of VAT) for each hour it sat with them. Pretty terrible experience. | 2016 | 01/05/17 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick desk reject with some comments. | 2012 | 03/13/13 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2021 | 09/10/21 | |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | rejected in two days... | 2017 | 11/15/17 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very negative experience. Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). And I've recently reviewed a closely related paper for the EER that got a revise-and-resubmit, so you'd think the topic must be interesting enough. | 2018 | 04/12/18 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in two days for not being general enough, $132 fee not refunded. | 2019 | 05/26/19 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick desk reject after less than 24 hours without comments, annoying given the submission fee | 2021 | 02/16/21 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | Desk rejected in 8 days. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Sent my paper to another different journal. | 2014 | 10/29/14 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2 weeks to generic desk reject with no comments whatsoever. Nothing that indicated they read the paper or even seriously considered it. Unfortunately, this is my usual experience with EER. | 2018 | 07/17/18 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | The paper would be a good fit. EER to toilet, the editors are clueless. | 2016 | 08/13/16 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk rejection within 1 week. had another paper desk rejected by the same editor two years ago, text motivating the rejection was exactly the same (copy + paste) plus an additional 2 sentences explaining why the editor dislikes the approach chosen in the paper | 2014 | 11/10/14 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected on grounds of the paper not "establishing a new set of empirical facts that theory must confront" (Eric Leeper). Waste of submission fee. Will avoid in the future. | 2014 | 10/09/14 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Paper got desk rejected. Went on to publish in a better journal. | 2019 | 02/11/20 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 11/04/15 | |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Not recommended. Editor did not even read the paper correctly. Coming off of a failed R&R at a higher ranked journal. They pocketed the submission fee, though! | 2021 | 10/26/21 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small) | 2017 | 08/25/17 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. Editors only pick those with close network. Avoid at all cost. | 2014 | 08/09/14 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk Reject, No Comment, Horrible Experience- THEY DO NOT REFUND the submission fee. Never submit again. | 2019 | 08/19/19 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject for paper being too narrow for the audience of the journal. Editor admitted haven't read the paper. | 2019 | 09/24/19 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 week for desk reject | 2015 | 08/19/15 |
| European Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2 weeks for desk rejection. Ass editor wrote some useful comments. | 2019 | 08/19/19 |
| European Journal of Industrial Relations | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2012 | 01/07/13 | |
| European Journal of Law and Economics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2018 | 06/28/18 | |
| European Journal of Law and Economics | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 3 | Major revisions at the first round and then accepted. Reports very helpful. Very good experience | 2015 | 01/19/16 |
| European Journal of Law and Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Good experience. Valuable referee's reports. The new editors did a good job | 2014 | 07/25/14 |
| European Journal of Law and Economics | Accepted | 12 | 3 | 1 | 2011 | 04/25/13 | |
| European Journal of Law and Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Very detailed reports. | 2017 | 02/19/18 |
| European Journal of Law and Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Efficient despite the adverse outcome. | 2014 | 09/22/14 |
| European Journal of Law and Economics | Ref Reject | 24 | N/A | 0 | Just a joke, 2 years of "under review" for nothing | 2012 | 05/22/14 |
| European Journal of Operational Research | Pending | 3 | N/A | 2 | two useful comments with one minor, another some work | 2019 | 03/07/20 |
| European Journal of Operational Research | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 3 | efficient process. 2 reports minimal work, 1 report some work. Some conflicting recomms that editor didn't address. Professional and useful oversall | 2019 | 01/14/20 |
| European Journal of Operational Research | Accepted | 5 | 2 | 2 | Two helpful reports. Definetely the referees liked the idea and wanted to improve paper's quality not to argue with its contribution. | 2020 | 11/25/20 |
| European Journal of Operational Research | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Good comments, nice time management from the editor | 2020 | 10/22/21 |
| European Journal of Operational Research | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2016 | 05/22/17 | |
| European Journal of Operational Research | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2019 | 03/07/20 | |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | One reviewer gave very constructive suggestions. The other reviewer raised some minor issues. Overall very fast process. Editor was very reasonable. (It doesn't seem like a club journal. I am not in a club, whatever it is.) | 2018 | 07/07/18 |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Accepted | 10 | 5 | 2 | Club journal that accepts your paper if you have good ties to the editors. I had. | 2012 | 10/24/13 |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2008 | 01/09/13 | |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Accepted | 5 | 2 | 2 | Quite good reports and sufficiently fast process | 2020 | 02/26/21 |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2020 | 03/27/21 | |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Accepted | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2010 | 01/09/13 | |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 3 | Two high quality reports. The third one very general and less useful. A lot to revise, but editor gave only 2 months. Finally very well handled by the editor. | 2020 | 10/23/20 |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Accepted | 3 | 6 | 2 | One great referee, one ok. Super fast process. Took some time due to lots of things to revise, but all the requests were fair. The editor's comments were no less helpful and extensive as referees' reports. Overall good experience. | 2016 | 06/02/17 |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Fast. Ref Reports: I'd say one okay, the other so-so. | 2014 | 05/23/14 |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Fast, but absolutely useless reports. Reviewers did not understand anything. Worst experience I have ever had. Will never submit there again. | 2013 | 09/20/13 |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Nice words from Editor. Quality Ref reports. 1 Ref suggested R&R, Galasso decided to reject | 2019 | 01/16/20 |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2017 | 09/20/17 | |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Two referees, one useful and helpful, the other clearly not an expert in the field | 2013 | 07/05/15 |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | useless reports... referees didn't seem to read the paper and appeared not to be experts ..... | 2014 | 09/29/14 |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Two and a half months for a desk reject for lack of fit. | 2013 | 01/22/14 |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk-rejected in 3 days | 2009 | 01/04/13 |
| European Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk-rejected in 7 days: "the paper lacks sufficient political economy content to be appropriate" | 2014 | 05/07/14 |
| European Review of Agricultural Economics | Accepted | 4 | 6 | 3 | 2007 | 08/02/13 | |
| European Review of Agricultural Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | 6 | 3 | Submitted in 2014. Three very constructive referee reports that help improving the quality of the paper. Three rounds. After two rounds all the referee agreed to publish the paper. The paper was under minor revisions. Unfortunately the editor decides to reject the paper on the last round because he has concern about the paper. Two years for such outcome. A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!! | 2014 | 03/28/17 |
| European Review of Agricultural Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | reports: 1 ridiculous, 1 useless, 1 useful | 2015 | 06/08/15 |
| European Review of Agricultural Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 12/01/15 | |
| European Review of Economic History | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 3 | Good reports. Quick process. | 2020 | 12/24/20 |
| Experimental Economics | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2018 | 11/25/18 | |
| Experimental Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | 6 months from initial submission to acceptance. Very helpful reports and overall a smooth process | 2016 | 03/05/17 |
| Experimental Economics | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | Total 6 months. Extremely fast and helpful. | 2018 | 08/12/18 |
| Experimental Economics | Accepted | 9 | 1 | 2 | 2011 | 12/21/12 | |
| Experimental Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2017 | 08/13/18 | |
| Experimental Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2018 | 11/25/18 | |
| Experimental Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 1 reasonable report, 1 lazy half page | 2019 | 11/05/19 |
| Experimental Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2018 | 01/19/19 | |
| Experimental Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Both reviewers were positive suggested R&R. Editor had different opinion. His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting... | 2016 | 09/01/16 |
| Experimental Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| Experimental Economics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | Decision based on 1 one-paragraph review that didn't refer to anything specific in the paper. After 7 months of waiting. | 2012 | 07/24/13 |
| Experimental Economics | Ref Reject | 11 | N/A | 2 | Extensive delay for referee reports apparently due to unresponsive referee | 2013 | 01/26/15 |
| Experimental Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | 2 | 2 | Rejected but fast and helpful reports | 2019 | 01/23/19 |
| Experimental Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 week for DR | 2020 | 05/26/20 |
| Experimental Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2 weeks. Editor letter saying that what we do is not so new. That's not true. But I'm a nobody. The bar is high for Exp Econ. | 2014 | 10/22/14 |
| Explorations in Economic History | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 3 | very efficient process and useful reports from editor and referess. Really improved the paper | 2016 | 10/07/16 |
| Explorations in Economic History | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 3 | Great experience. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. Three tough rounds which made the paper better. Only quibble is one referee got stuck on a (not applicable) approach and wouldn't let go. Editor should have told him to take a hike much earlier, especially when other refs suggested accept. Would submit here again. | 2017 | 05/23/18 |
| Explorations in Economic History | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Great experience. Referee comments greatly improved the paper, editor was awesome. | 2017 | 08/10/18 |
| Explorations in Economic History | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 2 | One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor. | 2013 | 05/19/14 |
| Explorations in Economic History | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Very well-run journal. The editor is incredible. | 2016 | 01/08/18 |
| Explorations in Economic History | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Very thoughtful referee reports with clear suggestions for improvement, as well as recommendations from the co-editor for better suited journals | 2019 | 09/09/19 |
| Explorations in Economic History | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Well-run journal. It was a rejection but the editor (Abramitzky) read the paper and provided some additional comments that were helpful. | 2017 | 01/08/18 |
| Explorations in Economic History | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | very good and fair comments in a short time | 2017 | 08/31/17 |
| Explorations in Economic History | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Two good reports plus some comments from editor. very well-run journal | 2015 | 06/23/15 |
| Explorations in Economic History | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | editor read the paper and rejected with some useful comments. fair decision | 2012 | 04/27/13 |
| Explorations in Economic History | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Super quick desk rejection because paper uses archive data but isn't really econ hist | 2019 | 09/12/19 |
| Feminist Economics | Accepted | 6 | 6 | 2 | 6 months plus to first decision - then substantial time between R&R rounds, with pednatic comments which mostly wanted to remove the economics from the paper to the appendix | 2017 | 06/16/19 |
| Financial Analysts Journal | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made. There was supposed to be a third referee report that was not received, which may have been the reason for the time between submission to decision. I ended up presenting the paper at two conferences between the submission and the decision. Between two referee reports and two conference discussions, I have some things to consider for future submission. | 2014 | 06/27/14 |
| Financial History Review?(Cambridge) | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Fair reviews, the editor was helpful. | 2014 | 06/05/15 |
| Financial Management | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | very thorough with helpful suggestions for revision | 2014 | 05/22/14 |
| Financial Review | Ref Reject | 2 | 2 | 2 | Thorough referee reports with substantive comments. Fair. | 2017 | 02/15/18 |
| FinanzArchiv | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Contribution was an application of a specific method to an interesting case, referees made it a methodical paper by asking for a series of many different methods | 2015 | 09/27/17 |
| FinanzArchiv | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | fast turnaround. quality reviewers. quick decision by the editor. | 2019 | 04/05/20 |
| Fiscal Studies | Pending | 6 | N/A | 1 | As they claim to be able to give a first response within 8 weeks, I was a bit disappointed to recive it after 6 months. Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions | 2012 | 04/16/13 |
| Fiscal Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. Other than that, the process was good. I got the referee reports after 2.5 months from submission. The reports were good and helpful. | 2016 | 02/12/17 |
| Food Policy | Accepted | 7 | 3 | 3 | 2017 | 05/21/19 | |
| Food Policy | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2014 | 10/30/15 | |
| Forum for Health Economics and Policy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick Desk Reject. | 2021 | 11/05/21 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Pending | 14 | 1 | 0 | Good reports, meaning they liked the paper ;-) , slow first round, fastest second round ever, minor revision requested | 2011 | 01/15/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Pending | 10 | N/A | 0 | Still waiting for the first response - slow | 2020 | 02/17/21 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Accepted | 6 | 4 | 2 | Fair reviews | 2014 | 09/01/15 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Accepted | 8 | 3 | 2 | 2011 | 10/02/13 | |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 2 | Fair process and relatively quick | 2018 | 10/28/20 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | One referee was thoughtful and recommended acceptance; Second referee asked for more results; AE agreed with the 1st referee. | 2017 | 06/02/18 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Accepted | 6 | 4 | 2 | 2011 | 12/22/12 | |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 2 | Fair process and relatively quick | 2018 | 10/28/20 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Accepted | 15 | 8 | 2 | 2009 | 12/22/12 | |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 2 | Fair process and relatively quick | 2018 | 10/28/20 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 1 | a short manuscript (8 pages) | 2013 | 11/03/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Accepted | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2011 | 12/21/12 | |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2010 | 01/29/13 | |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Accepted | 5 | 4 | 2 | One very good report, the other average-to-good. | 2007 | 01/15/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | horrible reports | 2012 | 05/16/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | 2 reports = trash; 1 okay | 2011 | 04/17/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Under one month for one very brief report saying not good enough for the journal and a completely indecipherable AE report. | 2019 | 05/12/21 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 12 | N/A | 2 | Worst experience so far. Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. and then took another seven months. SHAME on you. | 2012 | 05/23/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2009 | 01/09/13 | |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Outrageously poor process. One referee was extremely favourable, the other's comments were needlessly rude and completely hostile. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. The AE finally conceded that I was right and the referee was wrong - but decided to reject the paper anyway! | 2012 | 05/31/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Good quality report | 2012 | 01/11/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | Helpful reports | 2011 | 04/11/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 01/02/13 | |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Long wait for two one-page reports! | 2015 | 10/12/15 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 3 | Seven months... at least the reports where good. | 2014 | 04/30/15 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | 2010 | 01/02/13 | |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Reports ok-good | 2013 | 10/23/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Two good reports. 1 suggested r&r other reject, AE decided to reject--fair decision. Happy with process. | 2018 | 06/21/20 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Received two detailed reports, which were reasonably useful. | 2014 | 08/19/14 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Poor reports | 2013 | 05/07/14 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | One very helpful referee report, 2 not so helpful | 2012 | 04/13/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 12 | N/A | 0 | Worst experience ever. Outcome was fair and reports well done, but waiting time was unacceptable and the editor's lettere extremely poor. | 2012 | 04/02/14 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | One positive and one negative. The positive report points out more contributions than we claim. It also tries to give advice, but not really doable. The negative one is essentially saying "it's not game theory so I don't care." The editor agrees with the latter statement but adds "unless it's great." | 2015 | 10/19/16 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 2013 | 12/17/13 | |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | Bad experience: six months to get one report plus a decision letter that looked like a desk rejection (which is ok, but not after 6 months) | 2014 | 04/30/15 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2015 | 03/21/16 | |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 01/02/13 | |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Very good referee reports. | 2011 | 01/10/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | One positive and one negative report. Editor makes no attempt to reconcile conflicting reports or | 2013 | 10/07/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 16 | N/A | 0 | Super slow | 2016 | 02/14/21 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Very helpful reports. | 2015 | 06/09/15 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | One good referee report. The other without serious suggestions | 2013 | 06/17/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | Horrible. Crawford rejects although refs and editor recommends revision. | 2019 | 07/03/20 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | After waiting for 6 months received one crap report which is absolute garbage! never submit to this journal again. | 2015 | 01/28/16 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Too slow for a short paper, AE spent 4+ months to write very short and useless report. Referee reports OK. | 2018 | 03/14/19 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Average Quality R-Reports, one missed one has good comments | 2012 | 12/22/12 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | cannot complaint about reports but could have been faster | 2012 | 06/17/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2018 | 12/11/18 | |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | bad reports, of the type "i don't like it" | 2017 | 07/12/17 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | really too looong.... | 2021 | 03/20/22 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | bad experience. | 2015 | 10/20/16 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Very positive report, editor rejected | 2013 | 10/12/14 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Low quality reports | 2013 | 10/19/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | no specific reason for rejection | 2012 | 01/18/13 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2018 | 12/17/18 | |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature. | 2015 | 05/31/16 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | The editor-in-chief writes, "Although the question you address and your results are interesting, in my view the paper is a poor fit for GEB's readership.." | 2021 | 01/12/22 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | game theoretic contribution not significant enough for publishing at this journal | 2018 | 11/08/18 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | The editor rejected the manuscript without any useful comments. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. Really bad experience! | 2015 | 02/09/15 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast and fair. | 2018 | 09/23/18 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | AE editor rejects a paper that passed the desk at much better journals. The comments are of bad quality and show poor knowledge of economics. | 2017 | 08/07/17 |
| Games and Economic Behavior | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2010 | 01/02/13 | |
| German Economic Review | Accepted | 5 | 2 | 1 | A bit slow but a decent report. | 2014 | 03/06/18 |
| German Economic Review | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 3 | three rounds of R&R (two with the referees, one with the editor); very good experience, reviews vastly improved the paper | 2017 | 04/06/18 |
| Global Economy Journal | Accepted | 3 | 5 | 2 | Excellent and fast process. No complains | 2020 | 08/20/21 |
| Global Finance Journal | Accepted | 1 | 2 | 1 | Very fast review process (note: it was a special issue). One refree report who made very useful comments that helped significantly improve the paper. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process | 2018 | 10/15/18 |
| Global Finance Journal | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 1 | They looked better from outside. Although paper is accepted, i would hardly deal with them in the future | 2013 | 11/21/14 |
| Global Finance Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Submission to a special issue. The referee suggested rejection, and the associate editor agreed. The referee seemed to be familiar with the broad topic of the special issue, but not with the specific subject the paper dealt with (e.g. one of the requests advanced was indeed something that was dealt with in a specific section of the paper, making me think that the referee quicly skimmed through the paper without proper attention). Overall, I was disappointed not by the outcome per se, which is part of the game, but by the poor judgment of the referee. | 2020 | 01/09/21 |
| Health Economics | Pending | 3 | N/A | 2 | Revise and resubmit. Good report from reviewers. I am making revisions. | 2015 | 08/30/15 |
| Health Economics | Pending | 6 | N/A | 0 | Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. Contacted them, told me they will try to send it out to reviewers. Considering withdrawing. | 2016 | 05/23/17 |
| Health Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | helpful comments; quick process; good experience | 2014 | 08/11/15 |
| Health Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Good report with relevant comments which will be useful if publication of this study is pursued further | 2012 | 03/21/13 |
| Health Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Terrible editor. Two refereere reports and no comments from the editor on the reports. Non professionalism of editor and referee: one referee asked to modify the paper and upon seeing the changes did reject saying that I should have done the way it was done in the first place. The editor did not even realized this and rejected. No comments on the reason for rejection was given. My impession was that the editor did not understand the paper the first time (hence no comments the first time) and clearly did not understand the unprofessional behavior of the referees. Editing is a service and it is not mandatory. We do not need dumb editors!! | 2011 | 05/27/13 |
| Health Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | 3 | 2 | Referee failed to upload report. Referee told to write another paper instead. | 2015 | 12/14/16 |
| Health Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2019 | 01/11/21 | |
| Health Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Rejected a letter with one referee report but overall experience was good: about 6 weeks, comments sensible will try to implement. Editor Bruce Hollingsworth suggested an alternative journal. | 2017 | 07/27/17 |
| Health Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2020 | 12/07/20 | |
| Health Economics | Ref Reject | 10 | 7 | 2 | Paper was a letter. No applied letter should take 9 months to referee and the fact that editor did not solicit additional reports or nag the referee shows they don't care. Should have read the comments here about how badly run this journal is. Thank goodness that there are more journals in health economics started. | 2014 | 03/27/17 |
| Health Economics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Editor at least seemed to have given a pretty detailed reading of the paper, but was disappointed with the amount of time it took for a desk rejection. Comments from editor suggested issues were "fixable" but then basically suggested changing the ID strategy, which basically amounts to writing a whole new paper. So not sure why the editor would say this is "fixable", unless he is trying to say it sucks in a nice way. | 2015 | 04/26/15 |
| Health Economics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Editor desk rejected based on the identification strategy in the abstract, and clearly did not read the paper. 3 months for desk reject with superficial comments is ridiculous. | 2007 | 03/26/17 |
| Health Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Most dishonest rejection. Paper denounced an error on widely cited paper (unfairly comparing bootstrap vs asypmtotic theory with a nonpivot statistic!). The Editor is regular contributor to that mistake and provided non-sensical rejection. In general, you could bulid up a career writting notes on methodological errors publisehd in this journal. | 2013 | 03/13/14 |
| Health Economics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Basically, just a short e-mail saying that it cannot be accepted and it is more suited to some other types of Journals. The rejection was fine but took too long for a desk reject. | 2014 | 02/04/15 |
| Health Economics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | 3 months (!) for a desk reject with quite boring paragraphs from the editor along the lines why this is not using Angrist-Pischke methods... | 2014 | 07/16/15 |
| Health Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | instantaneous rejection, however, without any comments | 2019 | 04/23/19 |
| Health Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 5 Weeks for a desk reject without comments | 2021 | 12/27/21 |
| Health Economics | Desk Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | 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.. | 2012 | 03/22/13 |
| Health Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 3 weeks for a desk reject. Will not b submitting here again until editorial board changes | 2021 | 12/27/21 |
| History of Economic Ideas | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | One of the referee reports was very well informed. | 2017 | 07/28/17 |
| Human Relations | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Reviews not very helpful as it seems like psychologists reviewed it. So they had no idea about basic econometrics. If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not) | 2015 | 05/03/16 |
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | Accepted | 1 | 2 | 2 | Helpful reports and suggestions by the editor | 2017 | 09/30/18 |
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 1 | Supportinve referee report | 2011 | 02/11/15 |
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 3 | Very complementary and helpful reviews. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. Good experience. | 2015 | 05/03/16 |
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Good reports | 2013 | 07/28/13 |
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | The most thoughtful and detailed review I've ever had. Vastly improved the paper but had to submit elsewhere. | 2015 | 05/03/16 |
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | Ref Reject | 7 | 7 | 3 | Initial demanding R&R. Waiting was attrociious and final rejection not properly justified since reviewers went AWOL. | 2014 | 05/03/16 |
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | good experience. | 2014 | 07/13/14 |
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Many thanks to the editor for most constructive comments. He clearly outlined the major flaws and decided to desk-reject it. | 2014 | 02/11/15 |
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals. | 2017 | 07/11/17 |
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject within 1 day. Some valid points, but overall Kahn's criticism was thin. | 2020 | 10/30/21 |
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Took 4 months to report that the article was not a good fit and return without reports. Incredibly unprofessional. Would never submit anything to these people again and would never recommend to anyone else either. | 2020 | 01/04/21 |
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected because topic did not fit the journal. | 2019 | 01/21/20 |
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk reject by kahn in 48 hours. happy for a quick decision. | 2016 | 04/09/17 |
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 30 hours, helpful comments from the editor | 2018 | 04/07/18 |
| Information Economics and Policy | Accepted | 10 | 1 | 1 | Delays related to second reviewer. First reviewer excellent | 2019 | 10/23/20 |
| Information Economics and Policy | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Helpful associate editor | 2016 | 11/20/18 |
| Information Economics and Policy | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | The referees' comments were very much on target and thoughtful. | 2015 | 02/25/16 |
| Information Economics and Policy | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 0 | Slow moving. No reports provided, but editor made brief helpful comments. | 2018 | 09/09/18 |
| Information Economics and Policy | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Fast, bad luck with the editor who simply did not seem to see the point of the paper. | 2018 | 02/15/18 |
| Insurance: Mathematics and Economics | Accepted | 6 | 2 | 1 | crappy referee. club journal | 2013 | 12/31/14 |
| Insurance: Mathematics and Economics | Accepted | 7 | 1 | 1 | took 7 months for 1 referee report, but the R&R was quick. | 2014 | 10/10/14 |
| Insurance: Mathematics and Economics | Accepted | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 10/22/13 | |
| International Economic Review | Accepted | 8 | 6 | 2 | 2012 | 08/02/13 | |
| International Economic Review | Accepted | 6 | 11 | 2 | 2009 | 01/10/13 | |
| International Economic Review | Accepted | 7 | 3 | 3 | High quality reports and useful comments from the editor | 2018 | 01/24/21 |
| International Economic Review | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 2 | Very good referees. Harold Cole was excellent as editor. | 2011 | 07/31/14 |
| International Economic Review | Accepted | 6 | 5 | 2 | 2011 | 12/21/12 | |
| International Economic Review | Accepted | 6 | 8 | 2 | Very detailed reports. | 2015 | 06/19/17 |
| International Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Editor overturned referee's decisions with poor justification. Will never submit there again. | 2017 | 03/12/18 |
| International Economic Review | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | polite and constructive | 2012 | 01/29/13 |
| International Economic Review | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2008 | 01/10/13 | |
| International Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Got rejection after 4 months. OK report. The editor said some good words but also said he could not turn over the recommendation. | 2015 | 08/28/17 |
| International Economic Review | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/21/12 | |
| International Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2months | 2021 | 01/26/22 |
| International Economic Review | Ref Reject | 11 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/28/12 | |
| International Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | 2 | 2 | Referee said there is a mistake in the proof. There was no mistake. | 2014 | 10/12/14 |
| International Economic Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | 2010 | 03/14/13 | |
| International Economic Review | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | One positive and two negative reports. All are lengthy and constructive. | 2013 | 11/02/13 |
| International Economic Review | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | 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 | 2012 | 03/28/13 |
| International Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2016 | 05/27/16 | |
| International Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Two weeks. | 2016 | 08/25/16 |
| International Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. | 2019 | 10/16/19 |
| International Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). Recommended a field journal | 2014 | 01/25/14 |
| International Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in a month. Not a fit to the journal! | 2016 | 01/24/17 |
| International Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in two weeks. Got a form letter. | 2016 | 07/04/16 |
| International Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | The best rejection letter ever received. DK carefully read and gave constructive feedback. | 2021 | 01/26/22 |
| International Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Got a form letter in 10 days. Recommended field journals. Submission fee refund. | 2019 | 10/04/19 |
| International Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 day, Dirk Kruger | 2022 | 01/25/22 |
| International Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Formal letter in less than 10 days returning my manuscript. Recommended to aim for field journals. Submission fee refund. | 2021 | 12/09/21 |
| International Finance | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | very poor reviewer reports | 2016 | 02/21/18 |
| International Journal of Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | "Thank you for your paper. However, I regret to say that it is a bit tangential to the main focus of our journal, and we are not able to offer publication". | 2020 | 02/10/21 |
| International Journal of Finance and Economics | Pending | 24 | N/A | 0 | Submitted August 14, 2015. Emailed twice to ask about status and no decency of even replying. Withdrew July 31, 2017. Will never submit to this journal again. | 2015 | 11/19/17 |
| International Journal of Finance and Economics | Accepted | 8 | 8 | 1 | 8 months after submission, an in-depth and articulated referee report with many comments. The editor decided ”major revision”. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. | 2019 | 06/23/20 |
| International Journal of Finance and Economics | Accepted | 10 | 3 | 2 | It took a long time to hear back from the first round. Fair referee reports, ref. 1 was more positive and ref. 2 was more critical. We made almost all of the changes required by the referees and the editor accepted it. | 2017 | 01/06/19 |
| International Journal of Finance and Economics | Accepted | 8 | 1 | 1 | Long time to first response, given 3 months for a lengthy (single) report, but resubmitted and was accepted in like 3 hours. Odd journal but overall pleased with the result if not every part of the process. | 2019 | 09/30/20 |
| International Journal of Finance and Economics | Accepted | 4 | 5 | 2 | We got RR and referee reports 4 moths after submission, then it took 5 months to acceptance. Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. 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. Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff | 2015 | 01/28/16 |
| International Journal of Finance and Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | First referee constructive and positive. The second was more critical. Editor rejected. | 2015 | 02/16/16 |
| International Journal of Finance and Economics | Desk Reject | 33 | N/A | 0 | 3 years for a desk rejection, after sending them at least 6 emails and filing a complain with the publisher. The paper was "with the editor". Not even one comment. I only regret not withdrawing this. | 2018 | 02/28/21 |
| International Journal of Forecasting | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. Online in 2 months. Pleasant experience. | 2018 | 11/10/18 |
| International Journal of Forecasting | Ref Reject | 11 | N/A | 2 | Referee reports complete crap. One told me I should have use the methodology introduced by XPTO et al, which was the one I used and cited... Only worthy comment was the editors who stated (and rightly so) that though our model statistically improved forecasts. the difference was not economically meaningful. Ok, experience if it wouldnt be for the 11 months. Hence, terrible. | 2011 | 07/28/14 |
| International Journal of Forecasting | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | One report was an absolute travesty and surely had to be disregarded. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. Handling editor still rejects for unclear reasons; very frustrating, but at least fairly timely. | 2015 | 08/01/15 |
| International Journal of Forecasting | Ref Reject | 0 | 2 | 2 | The peer review process was fast. Although the referee comments were in detail some of them were really out of the scope. Use widely accepted methods. Do not offer any innovative technique. | 2015 | 12/02/15 |
| International Journal of Forecasting | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Despite the rejection, referees raised valid points that we can adress to improve our paper and provided a way forward. 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. | 2020 | 07/21/20 |
| International Journal of Forecasting | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Good and useful comments | 2019 | 06/16/19 |
| International Journal of Game Theory?(Springer) | Pending | 24 | N/A | 0 | 2 years and counting, for a small paper. Editor do not reply to any query. | 2014 | 08/12/16 |
| International Journal of Game Theory?(Springer) | Accepted | 3 | N/A | 2 | Both referees read the paper, one of them even found some mistake in the proof. | 2017 | 07/26/18 |
| International Journal of Game Theory?(Springer) | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | wonderful experience | 2013 | 06/23/14 |
| International Journal of Game Theory?(Springer) | Accepted | 9 | 5 | 2 | Great experience. AE did an awesome job. Great judgment. | 2016 | 12/27/17 |
| International Journal of Game Theory?(Springer) | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 3 | very fast and efficient | 2013 | 06/19/14 |
| International Journal of Game Theory?(Springer) | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. | 2014 | 11/10/14 |
| International Journal of Game Theory?(Springer) | Ref Reject | 22 | N/A | 1 | Is it professional? | 2018 | 09/09/20 |
| International Journal of Game Theory?(Springer) | Ref Reject | 36 | 2 | 5 | Actually, 57 months in total. Several rounds of mildly encouraging R&R reports, then paper was lost. Editor was changed, asked for electronic resubmission and paper got rejected. | 2006 | 02/04/13 |
| International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 1 | Very good referee report. Review process was very efficient. | 2015 | 10/03/15 |
| International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 1 | Very good referee report. Review process was very efficient. | 2015 | 10/03/15 |
| International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | 5 | 1 | Editor rejected after R&R without providing any referee report (note: journal name has now changed to International Journal of Health Economics and Management | 2019 | 02/18/21 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 09/24/13 | |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Pending | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2017 | 01/19/18 | |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Accepted | 5 | 1 | 3 | Good reports, very fast after the R&R | 2019 | 07/09/20 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Accepted | 7 | 1 | 1 | Initial response slow, then extremely quick after R&R. Friendly referee with clear remarks. | 2016 | 03/13/17 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Accepted | 5 | 2 | 2 | not the fastest experience, but high quality comments from referees and the editor who liked the paper | 2020 | 11/18/21 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Accepted | 6 | 5 | 2 | Very useful suggestions by the editor who read the paper carefully. | 2017 | 03/04/19 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Editor rejected after two positive referee reports. Referee comments were useful, editor clearly did not understand judging from his remarks, which made it frustrating. | 2018 | 03/25/19 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 4 | 6 | 2 | R&r from the editor with major changes suggested by one referee and the urge to strongly orientate the paper towrds one of her (editor) papers. One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. The editor rejected based on flimsy reasons. Wasted months of work. Worst experience ever. | 2018 | 11/05/20 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Bad reports. low quality and hostile. | 2016 | 02/02/17 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | Three poor reports. Nice words from the editor. | 2020 | 11/05/20 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 08/02/13 | |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 2 | 2 | 2 | . | 2014 | 05/12/14 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive | 2014 | 03/23/15 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Fast, but very poor quality reports. | 2012 | 02/03/13 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Very poor referee reports. Editor cites two but only sends one. Not submitting again to this journal. | 2013 | 11/01/13 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | One good report, the other one poor. Good editing process | 2013 | 07/04/13 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Two useless reports for a paper that has been accepted by another journal of general interest. | 2015 | 10/06/16 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2020 | 09/10/20 | |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 5 | 12 | 2 | Editor agreed to R&R and suggested major changes but then didn't like the resulting paper. Got reject after a year and half of work! | 2014 | 02/22/16 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Efficient. Constructive referee report. Reasonable decision | 2017 | 03/12/18 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 02/07/16 | |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | The IJIO has a rapid review process. 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. Therefore, we have decided not to review the paper. | 2020 | 05/01/20 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | AE desk rejected in a week. | 2012 | 01/11/13 |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2017 | 06/19/17 | |
| International Journal of Industrial Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after about 2 weeks; friendly letter, not sufficiently novel enough (which is fair, not my best paper, IJIO 4th shot, paper now at 2nd tier field) | 2018 | 11/19/18 |
| International Journal of Manpower | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 3 | Editor and assistant editor were great. | 2019 | 11/15/19 |
| International Journal of Manpower | Accepted | 8 | N/A | 2 | 2016 | 02/15/18 | |
| International Journal of Manpower | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Smooth process. | 2014 | 01/09/15 |
| International Journal of Manpower | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Good referee reports, very nice editor (Thomas Lange) | 2012 | 12/31/12 |
| International Journal of Manpower | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | good reports | 2013 | 05/19/13 |
| International Journal of Production Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 3 | Took almost 3 months for the first reports. The reports were very detail and helpful in fixing errors in my paper. The second round of review only took 3 weeks. | 2019 | 01/08/20 |
| International Labour Review | Desk Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after more than 5 months, avoid | 2013 | 01/14/14 |
| International Monetary Fund Staff Papers | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | 2020 | 08/10/21 | |
| International Review of Applied Economics | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | receive first response within 2 weeks. very rigorous comments. best submission experience | 2020 | 08/04/20 |
| International Review of Applied Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 rounds of critical and very helpful comments greatly improved the quality of my paper. | 2021 | 11/18/21 |
| International Review of Applied Economics | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | receive first response within 2 weeks. very rigorous comments. best submission experience | 2020 | 08/04/20 |
| International Review of Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | AFter 3 months of being "under review", I get this email: I regret to say that we are not able to offer publication to your paper. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so." Nedless to say I got no referee report even after asking. What is left to say? Avoid at all costs | 2017 | 11/19/20 |
| International Review of Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | No ref reports, 1 sentence from editor. 5 months, disappointing experience. | 2017 | 12/14/17 |
| International Review of Applied Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | "Thank you for your paper. However, I regret to say that it is a bit tangential to the main focus of our journal, and we are not able to offer publication". | 2020 | 02/10/21 |
| International Review of Economics and Finance | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. The editor does not respond to emails. | 2016 | 09/29/17 |
| International Review of Economics and Finance | Pending | 14 | 12 | 2 | this journal is very inefficient in processing submissions and re-submissions. | 2017 | 05/11/19 |
| International Review of Economics and Finance | Pending | 10 | N/A | 1 | A year after submission without result? Unbelievable! | 2018 | 02/23/20 |
| International Review of Economics and Finance | Pending | 12 | 12 | 0 | Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. | 2016 | 10/20/17 |
| International Review of Economics and Finance | Accepted | 0 | 1 | 1 | Fast. Great experience. Referee reports were incredibly useful and significantly improved the paper. | 2018 | 03/08/18 |
| International Review of Economics and Finance | Accepted | 5 | 5 | 2 | Reviewers comments were quite helpful. Overall, good experience with IREF. | 2016 | 04/16/17 |
| International Review of Economics and Finance | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | Fast turn around. A reviewer gave some thoughtful comments | 2016 | 04/06/17 |
| International Review of Economics and Finance | Ref Reject | 14 | N/A | 0 | Referee reject after more than a year. Extremely slow journal! | 2018 | 06/30/20 |
| International Review of Economics and Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | one positive, one flat reject review, the editor decided to reject | 2015 | 08/17/15 |
| International Review of Financial Analysis | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 2 | Almost 8 months to acceptance, despite Revised version submitted after 5months. Easy/doable revisions were asked. Cannot say the paper improved significantly, but it did not get worse either | 2020 | 02/22/21 |
| International Review of Financial Analysis | Accepted | 5 | 1 | 2 | Very efficient process. Two excellent referee reports. | 2016 | 10/06/16 |
| International Review of Financial Analysis | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 2 | Three rounds: one major + two minor (the last one being really minor, like copy-editing and missing references minor). After fully addressing the reviewers' comments at each round, the article got rejected in the third round with a totally "ex nihilo" issue risen by one of the reviewers, who never mentioned the issue before. Editor slept on the paper's submission history and the reviewer's dishonesty. Lost more than 6 months for nothing. | 2021 | 01/25/22 |
| International Review of Financial Analysis | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 1 | 3-line, useless referee report. | 2016 | 04/25/17 |
| International Review of Financial Analysis | Ref Reject | 2 | 1 | 2 | Rejected after one round of review despite all referee comments being addressed. Rather weird outcome but quite quick for a journal of its reputation. | 2019 | 08/03/19 |
| International Review of Financial Analysis | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 1 | The referee told us to delete the literature review. I think he/she was too lazy or unfamiliar with the literature to read the paper carefully. Not a r | 2019 | 11/08/19 |
| International Review of Financial Analysis | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Contribution: Single country Sample and OLS production | 2017 | 07/07/17 |
| International Review of Law and Economics | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 1 | very helpful comments which improved the quality of the paper; time between resubmit and acceptance: 6 days! great experience | 2017 | 10/20/17 |
| International Review of Law and Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 1 | Very quick response. 1 referee with small reasonable suggestions. Though the paper had been to several before so by the time it got to IRLE it was pretty polished. | 2014 | 10/28/14 |
| International Review of Law and Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Excellent Editorial Comments. Fast decision after resubmit. Highly recommended. | 2014 | 05/08/15 |
| International Review of Law and Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2015 | 10/31/15 | |
| International Review of Law and Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | 4 | 2 | Rejected after the first R&R. | 2010 | 01/11/13 |
| International Review of Law and Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | no submission fee but fast response and fair referee report. A good journal | 2017 | 05/06/18 |
| International Review of Law and Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick and fair outcome with a nice response from the editor | 2015 | 08/10/15 |
| International Tax and Public Finance | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Good experience with every step completed in a timely fashion | 2016 | 07/12/17 |
| International Tax and Public Finance | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | good experience | 2018 | 06/03/20 |
| International Tax and Public Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 04/15/13 | |
| International Tax and Public Finance | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | 2017 | 05/24/18 | |
| International Tax and Public Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Good reports and experience. | 2013 | 08/07/13 |
| International Tax and Public Finance | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | 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). It is not clear why the referee does not like the paper but it is clear he does not need 5 months for such a report. The comments from the editor are also disappointing: his main suggestion is to send our 7,500 words paper to economics letters. I wonder whether they actually read the document. | 2014 | 11/10/14 |
| International Tax and Public Finance | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | Referee reports were good. | 2017 | 02/13/18 |
| International Tax and Public Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | The editor barely read the paper and decided to just reject it... At least it was quick response - 11 days. | 2021 | 02/23/21 |
| International Tax and Public Finance | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Not a good fit. Editor was kind and offered some useful remarks. | 2017 | 09/02/17 |
| IZA Journal of European Labor Studies | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2012 | 01/08/13 | |
| IZA Journal of Labor Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 useless report, 1 very helpful and 1 okay. | 2014 | 11/11/14 |
| Japan and the World Economy | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Depressing experience. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. | 2013 | 03/05/14 |
| Japan and the World Economy | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Bad journal. They pretend to look like an international journal however thay only consider studies related to Japan. Although my article had Nikkei 225 index in it they rejected it anyway! | 2015 | 07/09/16 |
| Journal for Labour Market Research | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 5 | High quality, detailed ref. reports. Reviewers gave substantive comments and significantly improved the paper. Long process but well worth it! | 2020 | 03/16/22 |
| Journal for Labour Market Research | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2008 | 01/08/13 | |
| Journal for Labour Market Research | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Both reports were of high quality | 2012 | 01/08/13 |
| Journal for Labour Market Research | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 01/08/13 | |
| Journal of Accounting and Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | the referee report adds nothing, and the editor rejects based on the meaningless report | 2013 | 02/13/13 |
| Journal of Accounting and Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | The referee was clearly trying to protect his own paper on a related topic; half of the bullet points referred to that paper. The referee also pretended that I did not develop a two-sided hypothesis (comment like "why didn't the author think of this? Isn't it so obvious?" I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. | 2015 | 03/21/16 |
| Journal of Accounting and Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | 2021 | 06/25/21 | |
| Journal of Accounting Research | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Unhelpful referee, helpful AE | 2020 | 03/01/21 |
| Journal of Accounting Research | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | good report | 2013 | 02/26/14 |
| Journal of African Economies | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | The Referee Report was very helpful and quite positive. However, the editor rejected the paper with some strange reasoning. I assume he did not like the topic at the end. | 2020 | 02/04/21 |
| Journal of African Economies | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | Poor referee reports. Quite clear they didn't bother to read manuscript. | 2019 | 02/13/20 |
| Journal of African Economies | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | 4 months for a desk rejection, frustratingly slow | 2021 | 04/06/21 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Fast and very competent review. Much improved paper. Fair process. | 2016 | 08/20/18 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 2 | Slow process (but exactly as advertised) and fair judgment. Helpful editor. | 2013 | 08/20/18 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Useless referee reports--one was just a single short paragraph. No input from editor either. | 2012 | 04/30/13 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Extremely unprofessional. Not belonging to the club implies rejection. | 2016 | 01/10/17 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Fast Review process. Reports were okay but in the end not that helpful | 2021 | 04/08/21 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Seemed like a fair decision. We may have been aiming too high. | 2018 | 08/16/19 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | The most disgusting journal I have ever encountered. Sick comments and rejection for no reasons. | 2021 | 05/20/21 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Unprofessional letters, one full of typo and pushed to a no-way-working direction; the other simply was wrong on his/her main comment. Stay away from JAE | 2016 | 03/25/17 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | One excellent and detailed (5pages) referee report which helped a lot in revising the paper to a much higher level. Second one was about 15 lines. | 2010 | 04/30/13 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | One ok report, one poor. Long wait for such an outcome | 2018 | 02/03/20 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 reports and Editor provides some good suggestions within 10 weeks. Two reports give constructive comments and comments from the third report seem not understand the paper. Nice experience despite a rejection | 2020 | 11/19/20 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 01/11/13 | |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Quick response from referees and editor. One useful report and the other less so. | 2015 | 09/08/15 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Got two negative referee reports, where one in very useful, and the other is moderately so. Neither referee is hostile. The time to response is not long as well. So despite I got a rejection, the experience is actually not that bad. | 2017 | 10/31/17 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Ok experience. 2 shortish referee reports one fairly positive the other fairly negative, editor decided to reject based on lack of originality. I believe that if that is the reason it could have been desk rejected. Referee reports were on the shrt side, but competent and polite, unfrtunately I doubt that the comments received will help improving the paper. | 2014 | 07/29/14 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 10/01/13 | |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 4 | Competent referee reports, although one of them extremely hostile. | 2013 | 06/11/13 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | One referee waited for 182 days to submit his/her report as there was a time stamp on the report. Some unfair comments about replicating what other papers have done (which are already discussed in the paper!) Sounded like the referees couldn't let go off other papers' methodologies. Then why are we doing all this work?! | 2016 | 11/10/18 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. | 2015 | 01/11/16 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | At first the handling editor informed us that the paper is sent for peer review. Ona day later they reected it with a one sentence crappy referee report. Controversial journal. | 2016 | 05/22/17 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | "The empirical econometric novelty of the paper is not substantial enough ..." | 2014 | 11/01/14 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 12/03/15 | |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection within five days / Poor allocation of coordinating editor (microeconometrician for a time series paper) | 2013 | 03/27/14 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick desk rejection after manuscript ID was assigned. Suggested different journals, very efficient | 2022 | 03/14/22 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | 2016 | 05/22/17 | |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | The editor informed that she is a cross section econometrician and she did not understand our panel data paper. What can i say more? | 2015 | 10/06/16 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | minor but unhelpful comments | 2021 | 03/15/21 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject within 5 days. Not of broad interest. | 2015 | 10/30/15 |
| Journal of Applied Econometrics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. Overall, bad experience. Not because of the decision but due the letter content. It was most likely copy-pasted from someone else’s decision letter, and I know this because they forgot to change the name on it (yes, I received a decision letter with someone else's name on it). | 2016 | 05/09/16 |
| Journal of Applied Economics | Accepted | 10 | 5 | 1 | 2020 | 11/22/21 | |
| Journal of Applied Economics | Ref Reject | 13 | N/A | 1 | 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). | 2011 | 12/21/12 |
| Journal of Asian Economics | Pending | 3 | 3 | 2 | good comments and fast process. | 2022 | 03/05/22 |
| Journal of Asian Economics | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. Overall an excellent experience. | 2017 | 03/28/18 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 very useful report and associate editor comments | 2019 | 09/29/19 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. | 2019 | 01/12/20 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Two referees in the first round, good comments. In the second round, the comments are from only one referee, they are easy so revise. | 2014 | 04/26/15 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 1 | Very short to the point referee report. Surprised at how quickly all went | 2012 | 08/12/14 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. | 2012 | 02/26/13 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | good referee reports and relatively quick response | 2016 | 08/27/17 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Accepted | 1 | 3 | 1 | Short straight-to-the point referee report with a few nice points, no bullc*ap. Very nice experience! | 2012 | 12/17/13 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | I waited for seven months, only to receive one superficial referee report. | 2018 | 01/28/19 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 01/14/14 | |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. One was good and one was particularly bad with a lot of non-english expressions. | 2013 | 04/19/14 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | This journal provides a lot of details to track your paper (in total, we got 6 change of status), however, the whole process took almost 6 months but the referee reports were ready in less than 2 months (probably because they get paid since submission is USD250). That is, the handling of the submission took almost 4 months, I think this is unacceptable: what is the point to have quick referee reports if the editorial team takes such a long time? The reports were very brief ( | 2015 | 08/04/15 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 8 | 4 | 1 | Six page referee report after 8 months, answered everything the ref wanted, on second round he said I didn't answer his comments at all (despite a further 10 page reply) and rejected. Editor agreed. | 2014 | 12/16/15 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 2 | Good referee reports | 2013 | 02/03/14 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Not a good referee match given papers subject matter and therefore not very useful comments. | 2014 | 06/25/14 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Lowest quality referee reports ever received | 2013 | 02/02/14 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | 1 | 1 | Poor referee. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. | 2011 | 07/04/13 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | low quality and very short referee report... | 2013 | 03/25/13 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text. | 2018 | 03/18/18 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Terrible referee report... referee made contradictory statements and econometric mistakes in report | 2018 | 09/03/18 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Quick response. Referee report was short and commented on halve of the paper. | 2020 | 10/30/20 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Much faster than last experience with the journal, same result. 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). Still not a fan of this journal. | 2018 | 01/25/19 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2020 | 10/30/20 | |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 1 | 1 Report after 8 months, Seemed like all points raised were easily answerable | 2012 | 03/05/13 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2018 | 04/03/19 | |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | helpful reports, probably fair | 2013 | 03/19/14 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | both reviewers rejected for different reasons, reports were overall helpful but some comments showed lack of understanding. | 2019 | 08/10/20 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | 1 fair and 1 insulting referee report after waiting more than 10 months! | 2015 | 04/05/16 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 0 | N/A | 2 | 2 (ridiculous) referee reports, poor handling by the editor. Bad experience. | 2017 | 02/23/19 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Decent referee reports, good turnaround time | 2017 | 12/01/17 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 2 months. No comment from the editor,ridiculous journal. | 2014 | 06/26/14 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected as outside the scope of the journal. | 2016 | 10/19/16 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after t2 | 2014 | 06/26/14 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick desk reject with a few comments from the editor | 2010 | 08/02/13 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection after three days. Polite letter from Bekaert. Well argued rejection with helpful comments. | 2020 | 05/15/20 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | editor did not read the paper carefully, waste of US$250 | 2019 | 09/16/19 |
| Journal of Banking and Finance | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | editor did not read the paper carefully, waste of US$250 | 2019 | 09/16/19 |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | excellent experience. very good ref reports | 2014 | 11/30/15 |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2020 | 12/14/20 | |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Accepted | 7 | 9 | 2 | Fair process and good report. Long wait though. | 2013 | 06/05/15 |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Accepted | 9 | 2 | 2 | 2019 | 06/12/20 | |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Mean and non-sense comments from one referee so that the editor had to apologize. AE didn't provide comments which is odd. Some fair comments which are already addressed in the paper but no one paid attention to that... | 2018 | 11/10/18 |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 02/12/13 | |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Quick and reasonable. One extremely useful and one useless report. | 2013 | 11/12/13 |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 08/13/15 | |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments | 2014 | 03/27/14 |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | Both reports very helpful, AE comments showed that he did not understand the paper. | 2015 | 10/19/16 |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Referees did not bother to read the paper. AE apologised for the quality of the reports, but still rejected the paper. | 2019 | 09/19/19 |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | unfair reports | 2014 | 12/22/14 |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted. | 2015 | 03/08/15 |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 5 day, no comments | 2021 | 05/18/21 |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | no comments | 2021 | 03/15/21 |
| Journal of Business and Economic Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Generic rejection. Contribution too small. Two weeks to desk reject. | 2019 | 07/10/19 |
| Journal of Business Finance and Accounting | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | Very poor quality referee report after waiting for more than 7 months. Editor claimed that referee is an expert in the field. What a joke! | 2015 | 12/09/15 |
| Journal of Business Finance and Accounting | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | The editor said that referee is an expert in this field. The referee report is very good and even show a positive view to my paper. | 2016 | 04/21/17 |
| Journal of Business Research | Accepted | 13 | 2 | 2 | Had wait for the first response awfully long. Insightful and constructive comments. Think about submitting again | 2012 | 01/05/18 |
| Journal of Common Market Studies | Accepted | 6 | 2 | 4 | Helpful editor, fair referees. | 2012 | 09/10/13 |
| Journal of Common Market Studies | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Fantastic journal. Comments very helpful, editors took time to read the paper and were engaged throughout the process. | 2014 | 01/16/15 |
| Journal of Common Market Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Tough but fair ref reports that raise valid questions. Good experience, even though a reject. | 2015 | 04/08/16 |
| Journal of Common Market Studies | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Reject because aparently would not fit in their journal. Big lie. A black bitch barks at East Europe. | 2019 | 05/14/19 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Pending | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/28/12 | |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 1 | Pretty efficient process | 2011 | 02/06/13 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Accepted | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2006 | 01/10/13 | |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1st round 2 1/2 months. 2nd round 2 months. 3rd round 1 month and then accepted. Good comments from the reviewers. | 2018 | 07/05/20 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Accepted | 1 | 2 | 2 | Efficient process. 1 round before accept | 2019 | 11/07/19 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Accepted | 5 | 5 | 2 | I got two very different referee reports, one was very critical but absolutely low quality. It took me a lot of time to deal with unqualified comments. It took the referees / editor 5 months to look at my revised script to then just accept it without any further comments. A stronger editor could have handled the submission more efficiently also pointing out the weakness of the 2nd report. | 2014 | 10/29/14 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Accepted | 6 | 2 | 2 | Longish time to first response but good reports and a ref who just loved digging into my equations. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along. | 2017 | 11/09/17 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Very fast with constructive reviews. | 2019 | 06/01/20 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 1 | So-so report. Editor claimed to have two reports but gave me only one. | 2016 | 01/17/17 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Ref Reject | 0 | 4 | 2 | 4 months for ref. rejection. Both reports made non-sense suggestions (not sure if read through), editor did not read the article. | 2017 | 07/21/17 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | Quality of editing going down. Editor couldn't find referees, rejected and claimed two reports but only one sent. | 2018 | 07/02/19 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Handled by the new co-editor. Just a one-paragraph report saying that the results are not "novel". | 2016 | 01/24/17 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Referee reports were of high quality. Editor (and referees) rejected based on bad fit and offered suggestions for where to submit next. | 2019 | 10/28/19 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 02/02/13 | |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Quick and efficient | 2017 | 01/17/18 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk reject in 6 days | 2020 | 01/18/20 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | The editor (Hongbin Li) rejects because of lack of fir with the journal's mission. However, my paper is abotu China and Institutions, two things strongly encouragede according to their mission statement. I do nto think my paper was taken very seriously. | 2019 | 04/15/19 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor provided quick and fair comments why the paper is not suitable for the journal. | 2013 | 12/13/13 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor noted that paper of an associate editor was not cited but did not mention the name of the paper. | 2012 | 03/18/13 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | two weeks and then desk rejected | 2021 | 06/10/21 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Desk Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | Club journal | 2018 | 02/18/19 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Reject because apparently would not fit in their journal. Big lie. | 2021 | 01/23/21 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Paper desk rejected in 3 days. Generic rejection letter from the editor arguing lack of fit | 2018 | 11/26/18 |
| Journal of Comparative Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Reject because apparently would not fit in their journal. Big lie. | 2021 | 01/23/21 |
| Journal of Conflict Resolution?(Sage) | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject due to lack of scope of the manuscript | 2018 | 11/20/18 |
| Journal of Consumer Affairs | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Received two referee reports and a review from the associate editor within two months of initial submission. Article was rejected but the comments were generally helpful and thoughtful. | 2018 | 09/21/20 |
| Journal of Consumer Affairs | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Two referee reports; one high quality, one very low quality. The AE also provided his own review. I agree with most of the comments, but the bar for publication was exceptionally high, considering his relatively low position in the journal ranking. I wouldn't try this again. | 2020 | 10/23/20 |
| Journal of Consumer Affairs | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | One referee report was fine. The other was low quality and made factually incorrect statements that seemed to influence the associate editor's assessment of the manuscript. | 2020 | 09/21/20 |
| Journal of Consumer Affairs | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Rejected for a lack of contribution. Reviews were not particularly helpful | 2019 | 09/21/20 |
| Journal of Consumer Affairs | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Two referee reports and one report from the associate editor. Comments were helpful. Editor felt like the requests made by reviewers were too significant to warrant an R&R, but we did eventually expand the study and it was reconsidered as a new submission. | 2019 | 09/21/20 |
| Journal of Consumer Affairs | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | One useful referee report and one that was not | 2019 | 09/21/20 |
| Journal of Corporate Finance | Pending | 10 | N/A | 0 | Long waiting for 10 months, send 3 emails to ask, reply: under review | 2013 | 02/26/14 |
| Journal of Corporate Finance | Accepted | 2 | 4 | 1 | Very good referee report. Thanks! | 2013 | 01/31/14 |
| Journal of Corporate Finance | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | some useful comments from ref despite recommending reject | 2016 | 07/10/17 |
| Journal of Corporate Finance | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 1 | Submission for a special issue. Waited over 9 month for a half-page low quality report. | 2015 | 08/29/16 |
| Journal of Corporate Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Helpful referee report | 2013 | 03/05/14 |
| Journal of Corporate Finance | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. | 2012 | 03/14/13 |
| Journal of Corporate Finance | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 2021 | 02/21/21 | |
| Journal of Corporate Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Useful referee report | 2013 | 07/23/13 |
| Journal of Corporate Finance | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Lousy comments from the Editor in chief. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. | 2017 | 10/30/19 |
| Journal of Corporate Finance | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Ridiculous! Desk reject after 3 months | 2016 | 03/08/17 |
| Journal of Cultural Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Write any form of equation and you're skewered! | 2015 | 04/03/16 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Pending | 12 | N/A | 0 | After 12 months the paper was not even sent out to review or rejected despite 10 emails. Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. Disgraceful! | 2017 | 06/01/17 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2012 | 03/20/13 | |
| Journal of Development Economics | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 3 | Useful ref reports and helpful comments from co-editor. Courteous notes from editor&co-editors when first response was delayed. Overall, great experecience! | 2012 | 08/27/13 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Accepted | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2017 | 08/22/18 | |
| Journal of Development Economics | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2011 | 01/02/13 | |
| Journal of Development Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 1 | The co-editor was very efficient and apparently read the paper. First response in less than 3 months. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. | 2015 | 12/31/16 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2018 | 11/01/20 | |
| Journal of Development Economics | Accepted | 6 | 2 | 2 | Going through 15 months of the reviewing process. I am happy with the outcome. | 2019 | 09/02/20 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Great experience, one of the referees truly improved the paper substantially. | 2017 | 02/07/18 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Accepted | 0 | 4 | 2 | Editor was super helpful. Strong referees. | 2017 | 01/16/19 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 2 | Good reports and no nitpicking on the revision. Good experience overall. | 2017 | 06/13/18 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Good experience. Ref reports both frank and helpful. Referees tough & somewhat demanding. Editor guidance also helpful. Basically max 3-month turnaround from their side at any stage. | 2013 | 01/30/14 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Referee reports were modestly helpful, though there was very little overlap between what the referees commented on. | 2012 | 04/07/13 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2015 | 08/11/16 | |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. | 2019 | 05/12/21 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2017 | 09/10/19 | |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2016 | 08/10/16 | |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | 2017 | 09/10/19 | |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | Long process. 2 months for decision from being notified that "reviews received" and one of the referee reports was dated 7 months ago. moderately helpful but whole process took too long. | 2013 | 11/22/13 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Excellent and detailed report, fair decision. | 2013 | 01/20/14 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Two reviewers recommended rejection. One of them gave some good suggestions, but I disagree with some other points she made. Reviewer number two said the paper had no relevant contribution beyond those of a paper recently published in a top journal. This referee made no specific comments. | 2018 | 12/06/18 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Co-editor felt nothing "wrong" with paper but does not made enough of a contribution to warrant publication. (Shouldn't these cases be desk-rejected instead of being rejected after 6 months?) | 2017 | 11/27/17 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | one nasty and rudely written report with inaccuracies as well, one cited lack of fit. | 2017 | 04/28/18 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Fair decision. Excellent ref report. Pointed out the problems in the model and also admitted that its difficult to take care of all those problems | 2012 | 07/13/13 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | No theoretical model was developed. | 2014 | 03/03/15 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 02/18/13 | |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | The referees loved it, very positive comments. Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. Could have desk rejected and saved us all the trouble. | 2012 | 05/18/15 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | rejected after 5 months of 'reviews completed' | 2012 | 03/22/13 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | Six months to respond. One referee did read the paper, the other responded with odd arguments. | 2015 | 06/23/15 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Thoughtful comments from the referees and the editor. | 2014 | 10/22/14 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | great reviews and useful comments for ref | 2013 | 04/30/15 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 12/09/17 | |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | only 1 referee report 3 sentences long by reviewer who did not read the paper | 2013 | 05/18/13 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | Good reports but very slow to get a rejection | 2012 | 11/26/13 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Excellent reports that really improved the paper. | 2013 | 10/22/14 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | excellent comments from referees | 2014 | 06/29/14 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 1 | Submitted 4 February, rejected 29 December with 1 ok referee report that had been submitted in May. The journal originally sent me the referee's letter to the editor instead of the referee report - took almost a week to actually get the report. | 2014 | 01/21/15 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Both reports positive (one minor/one major revision recommended). Co-editor rejects because contribution is not big enough to warrant publication. (This would have been easy to see from reading the intro before sending this to reviewers – why not desk-reject instead of wasting author and reviewer time?) | 2020 | 11/08/20 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Ok reports with some useful comments | 2013 | 06/11/13 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Three weeks for DR without comments seems too long. | 2021 | 04/20/21 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection within two weeks. Rather uninformative feedback: feeling that it is not suitable for publication and unlikely to be favorably reviewed. | 2019 | 02/22/19 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected within 1 week. No reason given. | 2017 | 07/31/17 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 2 weeks. | 2018 | 05/05/18 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast desk reject. No comments | 2019 | 07/08/19 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 18 days, no indication that either adstract or paper was read | 2016 | 11/16/16 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2 weeks to desk reject. No reason provided, in line with the journal policy. | 2017 | 07/31/17 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after 26 days | 2019 | 03/20/19 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 week | 2016 | 05/24/16 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2 weeks | 2016 | 10/24/16 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/29/12 | |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk reject after 9 days - reason: editor feels not suitable for publication | 2018 | 01/02/19 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after 26 days | 2019 | 03/20/19 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | No indication that the paper was read. Then again, it only took a couple of weeks to get the rejection. | 2011 | 04/29/14 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Very slow. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. The editor's comments are not informative. | 2018 | 08/02/18 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 10/24/16 | |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | 1 | 0 | Editor read/scanned desk rejected paper. Provided very useful comments. Not suited to journal, and turnaround was 2-3 weeks. | 2014 | 06/06/15 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in 2 weeks without a reason | 2017 | 10/04/17 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 36 hours. | 2021 | 02/26/21 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in 3 weeks. | 2020 | 05/04/20 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Andrew Foster took a full month for a desk without a comment | 2018 | 12/12/18 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection after 1 month. | 2018 | 08/06/18 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | 6 months to desk reject with little reason. Expected much better from this journal. | 2016 | 08/05/16 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Rejected by editor with a comment that referees might not like the paper | 2021 | 01/26/22 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after 1 month without any comments | 2012 | 02/18/13 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 12/09/17 | |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in a week. They have officially adopted the policy of not giving reasons for desk rejections given the 75% desk rejection rate. | 2017 | 12/22/17 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Arbitrary decision without sending it to refs by incompetent editor. | 2014 | 08/09/14 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 5 weeks desk reject | 2019 | 01/13/20 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Rejected and no reason given. Here is all I received: "I regret to inform you that as part of a pre-screening process applied to all submitted manuscripts to the JDE, I have read your paper and have decided not to put it into the regular review process. This is designed to reduce the overall turnaround time for the journal, especially given the high volume of submissions." This, of course, is useless. | 2016 | 02/21/17 |
| Journal of Development Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 07/26/14 | |
| Journal of Development Studies | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2014 | 01/18/15 | |
| Journal of Development Studies | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | good experience | 2017 | 09/11/17 |
| Journal of Development Studies | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | good experience | 2017 | 09/11/17 |
| Journal of Development Studies | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Good communication and seemed very efficient. Both reviews helpful - one very extensive | 2021 | 06/10/21 |
| Journal of Development Studies | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2016 | 12/09/17 | |
| Journal of Development Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | 4 | 2 | Lousy reports showing lack of proper reading. One rejected outright, one offered R&R. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee. Basically if you don't make everyone happy on the first round you stand no chance at this journal. | 2017 | 10/10/17 |
| Journal of Development Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk Reject after 7 days | 2012 | 06/30/15 |
| Journal of Development Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Didn't fit journal aims well enough - very courteous rejection with suggestions on where to try next | 2022 | 01/31/22 |
| Journal of Development Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | the issue did not fit... no justifications. 2nd bad experience for me with this journal | 2015 | 03/13/15 |
| Journal of Development Studies | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk Reject after 5 weeks | 2020 | 10/08/20 |
| Journal of Econometrics | Accepted | 8 | 7 | 2 | 2 good reports, clearly improved the paper. So slow... | 2012 | 07/02/14 |
| Journal of Econometrics | Ref Reject | 11 | N/A | 2 | one referee report was in after three months, AE waited 9 months before making a recommendation | 2014 | 09/11/16 |
| Journal of Econometrics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | While the paper was rejected the referee reports were in-depth and very helpful. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. | 2011 | 05/01/13 |
| Journal of Econometrics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | Only one referee report. Comments are not useful at all. | 2015 | 12/05/16 |
| Journal of Econometrics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | not so helpful comments | 2015 | 03/14/16 |
| Journal of Econometrics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Some fair some unwarranted comments. Got the rejection after 185 days, referees like to wait until the last couple of days to read papers! | 2018 | 11/10/18 |
| Journal of Econometrics | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 3 | Helpful comments from referees and editor. But 10 months is too long. | 2014 | 12/02/14 |
| Journal of Econometrics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 02/05/13 | |
| Journal of Econometrics | Ref Reject | 11 | N/A | 2 | Long wait. Two referee reports: one decent, one poor. Silly comments from AE. | 2014 | 08/25/15 |
| Journal of Econometrics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Polite, some helpful comments | 2021 | 03/15/21 |
| Journal of Econometrics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 12/28/12 | |
| Journal of Economic and Social Measurement | Accepted | 8 | N/A | 0 | Accepted without revisions. Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that! | 2013 | 03/14/14 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Excellent editor, balanced referees and good timing. | 2019 | 10/28/20 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 6 | 3 | 2 | Very helpful feedback that made this a better paper. | 2013 | 02/28/14 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Two reports with mixed view. One review was good, and helped to improve the paper, the other one (recommended rejection) was raising many peripheral issues. Editorial processes were very fast. | 2017 | 10/19/17 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2018 | 06/21/19 | |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Very good handling of the process. Insightful comments by both referees and editor. | 2019 | 03/16/20 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 3 | Quick and well handled by the editor. Decent reports. | 2017 | 07/04/18 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 2 | 4 | 1 | It was very smooth. The report was very entensive and it required a lot of extra work but it was insightful as well (however, as always, we had to compromise in some things we were not fully convinced the referee was right). The process was very fast. Overall, very good experience. | 2017 | 12/21/17 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2013 | 02/28/14 | |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | Good reports | 2012 | 04/04/13 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2017 | 09/01/17 | |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | One very good report, the other OK. Efficient handling by editor. | 2012 | 03/18/13 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 1 | Really involved editor and a referee who suggested changes that, while complex, were easy to deal with. A really good experience and really fast. Will submit here again. | 2018 | 05/07/19 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 0 | 2 | 1 | I heard back really quickly with helpful comments. | 2016 | 01/12/17 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Good reports - detailed and constructive. Editorial work was very fair - gave an R&R despite split reports. Would send here again. | 2021 | 11/10/21 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | 1 very good referee reports, 1 mediocre, editor was nice. | 2013 | 04/20/14 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Process was acceptable. | 2013 | 08/08/14 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 2018 | 12/17/18 | |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. | 2021 | 02/07/22 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | inquiry after 6 month: "several referees invited but still no reports", rejected after 9 month: "sent the paper to four reviewers but only received two reports". Reports were ok, but total process took way too long. | 2015 | 03/24/16 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Very disappointing experience with the journal and refereeing process. 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). The contributions are very thoroughly detailed in the introduction, ie, the referee had to read around 3 pages and took him/her 6 months to do so. The referee made also several nonsensical remarks about the methodology giving a signal that s/he hasn’t thoroughly went through the paper. The other referee was very positive but the editor followed the negative report. | 2015 | 02/24/17 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | Exceptionally long time | 2012 | 10/12/13 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 1 | bad experience | 2012 | 05/19/13 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | Seemed like a very long time to only receive one referee report. | 2015 | 11/05/15 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 3 | Good reports. Took way too long... prob will avoid in future | 2014 | 07/31/15 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Terrible reports. | 2015 | 05/24/15 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | 2019 | 06/25/19 | |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | bad reports but thankfully fast | 2012 | 08/30/13 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 0 | Very slow... | 2012 | 03/14/13 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Good reports | 2014 | 10/21/14 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | 6 months for a referee report written by a plain imbecile who could not even derive Proposition 1. AWFUL editorial work. | 2018 | 11/26/18 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor says not a good | 2016 | 09/11/16 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2018 | 03/11/18 | |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Superficial comment. "Not a good fit". No reimburment of submission fee ($130) | 2019 | 06/17/19 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 02/06/13 | |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | a quick desk reject | 2020 | 10/11/20 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor misread the title and barely read the abstract. | 2016 | 04/18/17 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Within a week, Laura Schechter clearly went through the paper and give it a thought with a couple of helpfull comments | 2018 | 12/17/18 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | The editor barely read the paper and decided to reject! | 2015 | 12/22/15 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor response, not a fit to the journal, too theory! Perhaps we can call JABO an experimental journal now. Didn't refund the submission fee. | 2014 | 09/16/14 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. Surprisingly, she had one-page long useful comments, which helped improve the paper. The paper is accepted in another journal now. | 2018 | 04/12/21 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor says not a good | 2016 | 09/11/16 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Avoid Scott Adams. He does not read the paper, or he has no expertise. Avoid him. | 2019 | 05/02/20 |
| Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | rejected in exactly three weeks - editor said that the topic only gets published in JEBO if there's a special issue (which mine was not connected with). Still, refreshing for honesty. | 2016 | 06/09/16 |
| Journal of Economic Development | Desk Reject | 14 | 1 | 0 | Disappointing turnaround for this journal. I sent in my paper and after 2 emails requesting information about the status of my manuscript, I was asked to be patient. I waited fora long time only to be rejected with a response NOT A GOOD FIT. Terrible screening process at this journal. | 2018 | 10/22/19 |
| Journal of Economic Development | Desk Reject | 14 | 1 | 0 | Disappointing turnaround for this journal. I sent in my paper and after 2 emails requesting information about the status of my manuscript, I was asked to be patient. I waited fora long time only to be rejected with a response NOT A GOOD FIT. Terrible screening process at this journal. | 2018 | 10/22/19 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Pending | 2 | N/A | 0 | With editor for 1.5 month. Finally withdraw. Waste my time. Should be careful to submit | 2022 | 03/22/22 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Pending | 1 | 1 | 1 | Good report and conditionally accepted with minor revisions. | 2013 | 12/06/13 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | very fast and efficiently managed! | 2019 | 11/20/19 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Very very good comments, referee was clearly very knowledgeable. Very tough report on the first RR, extensive changes suggested, though all feasible and mostly all improved the quality of the paper. Editor contributed with some helpful comments as well. Very happy with the process, definetly a favorite for future | 2014 | 07/28/14 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 months between submission and final decision! I'm amazed. | 2013 | 12/30/13 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 3 | Very efficient process | 2013 | 08/18/15 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Accepted | 10 | 8 | 2 | One referee posted two of his own papers including url in the report, one of which was just accepted in the same journal before sending reports. Tried to block publication in the second round as well but editor overrode. Second report very good. | 2015 | 09/27/17 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Accepted | 9 | 3 | 2 | 2011 | 09/02/13 | |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 1 | Very helpful referee report. Very quick response from Editor (Otrok) after revision. | 2013 | 11/20/14 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | very good experience. | 2012 | 10/04/15 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | One of the best run journals in macro. Solid referee report and very quick response. | 2015 | 06/15/15 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 3 | Extremely efficient process with good comments by referees. Resulted in much better paper | 2013 | 02/25/15 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 3 | very good constructive process | 2016 | 07/13/17 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Very efficient. The editor (Ravikumar) gave me an R&R with reasonable requirements. Resubmitted and then conditional accepted within a week. | 2019 | 10/30/20 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Excellent reports. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. Fast response from the Editor. JEDC is well run. | 2015 | 05/12/15 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2021 | 03/31/22 | |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Ref Reject | 14 | N/A | 2 | Ridiculous experience. Reports with no use, in one case even mentioning the need of something that was already done in the paper. Unanswered letters to editor by the 6th and 12th months after submission, only got reply after getting in touch to editorial office. | 2012 | 01/16/14 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Ref Reject | 20 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 09/22/14 | |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | No surprising, but referee report was sloppy and incorrect. I don't necessarily disagree with the editor's assessment, but was surprised at the low-quality of the referee report. | 2018 | 01/09/19 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Mildly positive referees but reject nonetheless. Turnaround times are reasonable though. | 2015 | 07/02/15 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | One excellent and one ok report | 2019 | 10/21/19 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | Poor referee report | 2012 | 05/29/14 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 08/02/13 | |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Just over a month to referee reject. | 2018 | 10/01/18 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Bad experience on the whole. Seems to be unfit the reviewing editor's preference but the handling editor was kind though. | 2015 | 08/13/15 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 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. | 2014 | 10/09/14 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected the same day! The editor simply did not read the paper, since he presented no specific comment whatsoever about it, nor any recommendation. True, no time wasted, just the $125 submission fee. | 2020 | 07/21/20 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Five weeks "with editor" to a boilerplate desk reject, then they asked me to applaud them for a "speedy decision." | 2021 | 09/08/21 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in a few days. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. | 2014 | 11/18/14 |
| Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 07/05/14 | |
| Journal of Economic Education | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 01/05/13 | |
| Journal of Economic Education | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 3 reports. One good and two useless reports. Referees reasons to reject the paper are not convincing enough. | 2015 | 01/19/16 |
| Journal of Economic Education | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Got 3 ref reports - 1 RR 2 reject. Good reports overall. Editorial office very helpful. | 2015 | 11/28/15 |
| Journal of Economic Education | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Terrible, very short referee reports. Anti-intellectual reasoning. Overall horrifying experience. Who are these people?? I suspect a tight club. | 2020 | 07/09/20 |
| Journal of Economic Education | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | one ok report, one very hostile. not worth the time and effort. | 2013 | 04/30/16 |
| Journal of Economic Geography | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2017 | 07/30/17 | |
| Journal of Economic Geography | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | The time was not long (bit less than 10 weeks), the outcome was what is normal in this profession (Referee rejection). However, it seems the process is one editor first decide whether to send to referee or not but a second editor makes the final decision (William Kerr)? (are we a bit paranoiac?). That mean 5 people read my paper? | 2018 | 08/13/18 |
| Journal of Economic Geography | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection in one week. Editor actually read the paper. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. | 2015 | 02/27/15 |
| Journal of Economic Geography | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2018 | 03/11/18 | |
| Journal of Economic Geography | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2019 | 07/22/19 | |
| Journal of Economic Geography | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in less than one month. Fair and useful comment by the editor. Recommended | 2015 | 03/03/15 |
| Journal of Economic Geography | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 2 weeks due to bad fit. | 2018 | 06/09/18 |
| Journal of Economic Growth | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | one useless ref report | 2013 | 02/10/14 |
| Journal of Economic Growth | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | 1 reasonable report | 2018 | 07/21/18 |
| Journal of Economic Growth | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 7 weeks | 2021 | 11/02/21 |
| Journal of Economic Growth | Ref Reject | 12 | N/A | 1 | Waited 12 weeks for six lines from one ref. Charging for this should be a crime. | 2017 | 07/29/17 |
| Journal of Economic Growth | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | A very detailed and fair review of our research, providing a balanced judgement of our achievements. Constructive and very specific. In-depth argumentation why there is no sufficient progress compared to common wisdom. Also a very kind editorial letter. Excellent experience. | 2015 | 12/08/15 |
| Journal of Economic Growth | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Good reviews by the referee and the AE. We agreed with most of the comments. Took seven weeks to get these reviews, pretty efficient journal. | 2017 | 06/10/17 |
| Journal of Economic Growth | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | WE got 3 tough and long referee reports. It is not very clear why it got rejected at the end (I guess referees recommended rejection but thsi was not stated in their reports so it coudl have been the editor who thought it was difficut to get published given the work needed). Overall, the reports were good so no complains. | 2015 | 07/13/17 |
| Journal of Economic Growth | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. 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. I don't think he/she took a wee bit of pain to find out the context. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. Very, very disappointed. | 2016 | 02/06/17 |
| Journal of Economic Growth | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Two referee reviews. One is very productive while the other is suck | 2015 | 08/13/15 |
| Journal of Economic Growth | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Galor and the referees felt the contribution wasn't substantial enough. I suppose if your work is primarily empirical then you'd better do something that's close to the editor's personal interest, otherwise there will always be the criticism that you need more theory. Would submit again. | 2014 | 10/09/14 |
| Journal of Economic Growth | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Efficient. Six weeks for response. One useful report, the other poor. | 2013 | 01/18/14 |
| Journal of Economic History | Accepted | 3 | 5 | 3 | Editor acted as 4th referee once referees were satisfied. | 2014 | 09/19/17 |
| Journal of Economic History | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 very constructive reports, speedy process after resubmission | 2020 | 01/11/22 |
| Journal of Economic History | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Two reports that are quite detailed. Editor (Collins) might read the paper, but did not say much. The reviewers "firmly" recommend rejection but I see that most problems can be fixed. Overall, not bad experience. BTW, "Under review" all the time during the reviewing process, similar to AEA journals (but different from some other journals using manuscript central). | 2018 | 05/22/18 |
| Journal of Economic History | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 1 positive but short & useless, 1 incompetent negative who didn't even understand the historical topic. Grad student who manages inbox for ed took bad review at face value. | 2015 | 09/28/15 |
| Journal of Economic History | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 0 | Two very thin referee reports. Referees obviously did not read the paper. Extremly disappointing for a journal which claims to be the number one field journal. | 2016 | 09/23/17 |
| Journal of Economic History | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2019 | 07/22/19 | |
| Journal of Economic History | Ref Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2 useless reports by refs who barely skimmed the paper, one completely mistook the tested var & misreported it in his comments, editor's comments (Bill Collins) were smug and obnoxious but shallow | 2016 | 09/21/17 |
| Journal of Economic History | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Very disappointing. Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda | 2015 | 10/07/16 |
| Journal of Economic Inequality | Accepted | 8 | 1 | 2 | 2010 | 01/06/13 | |
| Journal of Economic Inequality | Accepted | 3 | 4 | 2 | Good reports, smooth process. | 2013 | 04/20/14 |
| Journal of Economic Inequality | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | helpful referee reports. | 2018 | 05/03/18 |
| Journal of Economic Inequality | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick desk rejection. The AE was gentle and actually read my paper. He suggested a more suitable outlet. | 2016 | 05/17/16 |
| Journal of Economic Issues | Accepted | 8 | 2 | 2 | Long time to first response and had to chase up editor, but comments were helpful and editor was very engaged in the revision process. Would submit here again now that I know what to expect. | 2015 | 03/15/16 |
| Journal of Economic Issues | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Over 8 weeks for a desk reject due to poor fit for journal. Completely unacceptable. | 2016 | 05/30/16 |
| Journal of Economic Psychology | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2016 | 05/03/17 | |
| Journal of Economic Psychology | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 weeks to first response. Really good advice from journal editor and 2 good reports. | 2014 | 10/22/15 |
| Journal of Economic Psychology | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 2 | Helpful reports, overall good experience. | 2016 | 02/03/17 |
| Journal of Economic Psychology | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Generous comments from editor and referees | 2018 | 06/16/19 |
| Journal of Economic Psychology | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | lenghty referee reports; rejection because of one referee even though I discuss his point | 2018 | 08/07/18 |
| Journal of Economic Psychology | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Had to send several emails inquiring about the status. 2 months with almost no answer, although the journal claims desk rejections are within days. Anyway, the editor letter mentiones out of scope, and blaims it on our lack of (maybe interest in ?) 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. It made it sound like we were not part of the club anyway. | 2020 | 11/19/20 |
| Journal of Economic Psychology | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2020 | 10/05/20 | |
| Journal of Economic Surveys | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | One ref in favor, one against. Fair points raised, although I would have preferred a R&R naturally. | 2016 | 02/23/17 |
| Journal of Economic Surveys | Ref Reject | 14 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/05/13 | |
| Journal of Economic Surveys | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Horrible...very low quality reports | 2015 | 07/29/16 |
| Journal of Economic Surveys | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 03/18/14 | |
| Journal of Economic Surveys | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2019 | 07/29/19 | |
| Journal of Economic Surveys | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2017 | 06/10/17 | |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Pending | 5 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Accepted | 6 | 6 | 2 | 2009 | 12/22/12 | |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Good reports and constructive feedback from AE; only 1 round of R&R | 2016 | 03/13/18 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Good experience with helpful AE and reviewer. | 2016 | 11/18/17 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 3 | Decent reports; AE was a bit difficult, but ultimately helpful | 2011 | 01/29/13 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Pretty helpful reports. Editor handled it well. | 2015 | 06/17/16 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | 2010 | 12/24/12 | |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 1 very weak report, 1 very useful, AE's report extremely weak | 2020 | 09/05/20 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | Short report | 2011 | 04/04/13 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 4 | Worst experience with a paper submission ever. Xavier Vives rejected the paper after 4 rounds and 2 years based on the recommendation of an incompetent referee who couldn't understand the paper and kept making bogus claims about errors in the analysis or interpretation in every round. Even though I debunked his claims every time, he was just coming up with new ones. The editor didn't bother to read through the lines of my responses to his previous reports to see how incompetent the referee is, or to look at the big picture and account also for the reports of other referees who wrote much more competent reports and had recommended acceptance several rounds earlier. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. It's the kind of disappointment that makes you stop caring about research. | 2015 | 10/22/17 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Under two month for two reports. One good, one crap but overall a fair and quick decision. | 2020 | 05/12/21 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | 2010 | 01/09/13 | |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 3 | 2017 | 07/25/18 | |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. I was very grateful despite the rejection. | 2014 | 10/15/14 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Average quality reports | 2012 | 04/10/13 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 11/22/13 | |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 2 | 11 | 2 | 2018 | 03/10/20 | |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Referees rejected. Reasonable. Fast turnover. | 2017 | 05/08/18 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Good referee reports | 2015 | 02/13/16 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | 2010 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | referee repots good | 2012 | 04/26/13 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 4 | Positive feedback from the editor. But referees are very negative. | 2014 | 07/05/14 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2014 | 08/19/15 | |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 4 | Positive feedback from the editor. But referees are very negative. | 2014 | 07/05/14 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Hellwig rejected, suggested 2nd tier journal such as ET | 2010 | 03/05/13 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | "not enough contribution". useless reports. | 2014 | 09/09/14 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 06/03/13 | |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Not a good fit. Desk reject in 48hs | 2017 | 08/17/17 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Rejected with a 1-page AE report, after almost 3 months. No referee reports. The AE report made no sense at all, and had very little substance. With hindsight, I got much more out of submitting this paper to TE. | 2020 | 10/19/20 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | editor was nice enough to drop a page or so of precise and useful comments | 2013 | 02/20/14 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Rejected by an Associate Editor, who actually read the paper, got the main idea clearly, and wrote a 2 full-page report with reasoning why this is not for JET and what journal outlets might be considered. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. Pleasant experience overall. Will submit again. | 2017 | 12/15/17 |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2018 | 12/17/18 | |
| Journal of Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 06/03/13 | |
| Journal of Economic Theory (Elsevier) | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 3 | Excellent process and referees | 2015 | 09/18/16 |
| Journal of Economic Theory (Elsevier) | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Efficient and professional. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and less than two months in the second round. | 2015 | 05/24/16 |
| Journal of Economic Theory (Elsevier) | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Editor is very efficient and professional. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and about two months in the second round. | 2016 | 08/20/17 |
| Journal of Economic Theory (Elsevier) | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Very good referee report | 2013 | 03/21/14 |
| Journal of Economic Theory (Elsevier) | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | 2 reports + report from AE which is a lot better than referee reports | 2018 | 11/05/18 |
| Journal of Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Fast response; good reports. | 2011 | 02/07/13 |
| Journal of Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | editor very helpful. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful. | 2010 | 10/04/15 |
| Journal of Economics | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | Smooth process. One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. If you are in a hurry or need one to fill you CV, then choose it., | 2020 | 06/23/20 |
| Journal of Economics and Finance | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2016 | 01/28/17 | |
| Journal of Economics and Finance Education | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Fast turnaround. Excellent communication with editor. Accepted 4 days after resub. Thorough ref reports with good comments. Nice when they actually read the paper. | 2017 | 02/03/18 |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 weak report & 1 very professional, AE also very professional | 2019 | 09/05/20 |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Accepted | 9 | 9 | 2 | It took 4 rounds of referee reports. The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. Once that work was published, he finally accepted the paper. The paper was published in 2016 | 2010 | 06/09/17 |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Decent referee reports that indeed improve the paper | 2014 | 02/26/16 |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Accepted | 3 | 8 | 2 | Initial response was quick. Editor and referees seemed willing to listen to reason which encouraged me to work hard on the revision and make my case when I thought reports misguided. | 2012 | 09/09/13 |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Accepted | 6 | 6 | 2 | 2016 | 07/18/17 | |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Accepted | 6 | 5 | 2 | All is well when it ends well. | 2013 | 05/29/14 |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Good reports that were specific and helpful. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. | 2011 | 05/30/13 |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Very fast and professional referee reports. | 2017 | 02/24/18 |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 04/12/13 | |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2017 | 06/13/18 | |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | One excellent report, one mediocre report | 2015 | 09/05/15 |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | One good report. Comments were fair | 2016 | 07/04/16 |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Fair reports | 2018 | 04/01/19 |
| Journal of Economics and Management Strategy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 7 days - out of scope | 2016 | 08/24/16 |
| Journal of Empirical Finance | Pending | 6 | N/A | 2 | referees appear to understand the area. the revision requirements seem achievable. Rather short reports for waiting 6 months. We'll see. | 2013 | 05/22/14 |
| Journal of Empirical Finance | Accepted | 7 | 6 | 1 | Accepted after two rounds. One referee report---which is actually better than any report ever received with this paper (including those from RFS, JFQA, and MS) | 2013 | 02/19/17 |
| Journal of Empirical Finance | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 2 | Update to previous pending post. The acceptance came quickly after the second round of review. | 2013 | 09/18/14 |
| Journal of Empirical Finance | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2013 | 02/10/14 | |
| Journal of Empirical Finance | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 1 | Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. Only 1 report, but a fair assessment of the paper. | 2016 | 09/02/17 |
| Journal of Empirical Finance | Ref Reject | 13 | N/A | 1 | Bad to useless reports after an unacceptably long response time. | 2014 | 03/17/15 |
| Journal of Empirical Finance | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | unreasonable report, the referee imposed a t-stat of at least 5 or 6 for an empirical study. | 2018 | 10/30/19 |
| Journal of Empirical Finance | Ref Reject | 14 | N/A | 0 | Referee reject without any comments after 14 months of chasing the journal. Awful experience. | 2018 | 08/03/19 |
| Journal of Empirical Finance | Ref Reject | 14 | N/A | 1 | Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Do not waste your time with this journal. | 2014 | 10/19/15 |
| Journal of Empirical Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere | 2016 | 09/14/17 |
| Journal of Empirical Finance | Ref Reject | 14 | N/A | 1 | Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Do not waste your time with this journal. | 2014 | 10/19/15 |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Pending | 6 | N/A | 2 | Close call...Editor gave the benefit-of-a-doubt and requested revisions | 2013 | 02/28/14 |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Accepted | 6 | 6 | 2 | reviewer reports were okay, but the process took so long. | 2002 | 11/27/16 |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 2 | First decision in 2 months. Second decision took 2.5 months. Third round (acceptance) took 2 weeks. | 2012 | 07/07/14 |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Accepted | 6 | 5 | 2 | one good referee, the other not very good, helpful editor | 2012 | 10/22/13 |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Accepted | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2010 | 01/09/13 | |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Accepted | 10 | 3 | 3 | overall, pretty smooth process (always easier to say when the paper ends up being published) | 2016 | 09/26/17 |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2012 | 12/04/13 | |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Fast review process. It was clear that the referees read the paper and provided appropriate comments. The editor suggested an alternative outlet, which was where the paper eventually got published. | 2017 | 01/22/19 |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2016 | 12/05/16 | |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2018 | 09/21/19 | |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Fast response. One brief report. One detailed report. | 2015 | 10/01/15 |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 02/20/13 | |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 12 | N/A | 2 | Somehow it took a whole year for the referees to write short and horribly useless reports which show they did not even bother to read the introduction. | 2016 | 06/08/17 |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Very detailed referee reports | 2017 | 07/19/18 |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | relatively fast, but referees totally uninformed of the literature | 2014 | 12/03/14 |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | One up, one down...editor decided down. | 2011 | 02/28/14 |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2006 | 01/09/13 | |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Two reviews - one very positive, and one that was clearly from someone outside of the field that was not familiar with the methods or the literature. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. Much better process and better reviewers at JAERE. | 2015 | 12/14/15 |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 02/28/14 | |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 07/22/13 | |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2016 | 12/09/17 | |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 08/02/13 | |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk-rejected in 3 days. The Editor Requate cannot distinguish between partial and general equilibrium. Waste of the submission fee. To avoid. | 2016 | 07/29/16 |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 08/02/13 | |
| Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | Desk Reject | 7 | 7 | 1 | 2 rounds after which referee recommended acceptance, but editor (Chakravorty) kept the paper for 7(!) more months, before rejection based on superficial comments. Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. | 2017 | 12/05/19 |
| Journal of European Economic History | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | One report was very useful and of very good quality, the other was of good quality but not very useful. Very professional way of handling the process | 2007 | 04/16/13 |
| Journal of Evolutionary Economics | Accepted | 10 | 3 | 1 | Very helpful report which has permitted to increase the quality of the paper | 2012 | 11/08/13 |
| Journal of Family and Economic Issues | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2019 | 09/21/20 | |
| Journal of Family and Economic Issues | Accepted | 6 | 3 | 2 | Initial review was slow but there was an editor change that may have contributed to this. Helpful comments received from reviewers. | 2018 | 09/21/20 |
| Journal of Family and Economic Issues | Ref Reject | 4 | 2 | 4 | Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data | 2013 | 07/27/15 |
| Journal of Family and Economic Issues | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2018 | 04/25/20 | |
| Journal of Family and Economic Issues | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after one day due to poor fit. Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. | 2020 | 09/21/20 |
| Journal of Family and Economic Issues | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 10 days because the editor wasn't a fan of the data. Editor provided useful feedback and a subsequent version of the manuscript was sent out for peer review. | 2019 | 09/21/20 |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | 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. I revised as a new submission based on comments from a previous reviewer at the journal | 2013 | 05/22/14 |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | referee report was short, but demonstrated expertise, could have addressed all of the comments but ultimately rejected under KS | 2012 | 05/22/14 |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 rounds then rejected by editor, paper was improved by addressing reviewers' comments, eventually accepted at RFS | 2005 | 05/22/14 |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Bruno Biais was AE. Got most thorough, informed, and useful referee reports in 5 years. | 2012 | 12/20/12 |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | This was the worst referee report ever. The referee completely misunderstood a *very* basic primary school model and then went on to criticize and complain about the empirical results. I wrote the editor but nothing changed. I don’t care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. But it does move my prior of “affiliation doesn’t matter, just the paper” (yes, a prior that no one here seems to have). Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago. | 2018 | 08/21/18 |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | concise and useless comments. | 2016 | 08/15/16 |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 1 | Cam Harvey gave useless report; obvious outgoing editor is obvious | 2011 | 12/28/12 |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Referee report kind of useless | 2010 | 01/29/13 |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | KS super smart and constructive feedback. referee and AE comments, OK at best. | 2013 | 08/15/13 |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | great referee report, great editor, not so great AE | 2013 | 04/21/13 |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 03/18/14 | |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Two good reports providing many suggestions regarding how I should modify and extend the paper. But the other one was useless; it's like a collection of "minor comments." | 2019 | 06/17/20 |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | A poor quality referee report. | 2014 | 10/28/16 |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | thorough but not brutal enough - the paper was not very a contribution at all at the time and needed a much harsher rejection, seriously | 2012 | 05/22/14 |
| Journal of Finance | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 12/27/12 | |
| Journal of Finance | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Useful comments from the editor (Stefan Nagel). | 2019 | 11/06/19 |
| Journal of Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 5 days. Got the refund soon after request. | 2013 | 12/06/13 |
| Journal of Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Unable to find a reviewer | 2019 | 05/09/19 |
| Journal of Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Great comments from Philip Bond | 2016 | 10/17/16 |
| Journal of Finance | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | KS rejected based on AE's brief report; AE comments somewhat useful but a tad unfair (main criticism applies to many papers publ. in JF in the area) | 2013 | 02/24/14 |
| Journal of Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk Rejected with AE report | 2013 | 10/04/17 |
| Journal of Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | I received 3 paragraphs of comments from the AE. Very good comments even if he slightly misunderstood the contribution. | 2013 | 06/22/16 |
| Journal of Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! | 2013 | 02/26/14 |
| Journal of Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 09/21/13 | |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Great experience - referee and editor very helpful | 2014 | 05/14/14 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Accepted | 1 | N/A | 1 | very comprehensive report. referee is very fast. R&R only takes one week. | 2013 | 11/28/13 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Accepted | 1 | N/A | 1 | very comprehensive report. referee is very fast. R&R only takes one week. | 2013 | 11/28/13 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 1 | Great experience; precise and informed referee report; 1st round for major improvements, 2nd round pretty much converged to acceptance. | 2012 | 02/24/14 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 report each of 2 rounds | 2013 | 08/10/14 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 1 | Rubbish report ! Referee obviously has no clue of what's going on. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. if we go by his saying, then all finance articles are purely pointless. | 2015 | 06/11/15 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | negative albeit fair referee report | 2014 | 02/24/14 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 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 | 2013 | 05/22/14 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | 2015 | 06/11/15 | |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Two paragraph rubbish referee report | 2017 | 08/17/17 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Very low quality reports. I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. The referee just want to reject and did not want to spend reasonable effort to read your paper | 2018 | 10/30/19 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | repor | 2013 | 06/07/13 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Fair report | 2013 | 08/06/15 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Nice referee report. | 2013 | 07/03/13 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | fast process; only one report who was mainly referencing a single paper (SSRN, not published, single author); no useful feedback, disappointing experience | 2018 | 12/06/18 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | awful experience. Ref needed 6 months to produce a paragraph of a response. Comments were meant for another paper. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. | 2012 | 02/10/14 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Fast response but average comments... I am not sure the referee knows the topic area well enough | 2013 | 09/26/13 |
| Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk-rejected after ten days. Suggested a general interest journal. | 2013 | 02/09/13 |
| Journal of Financial Econometrics | Accepted | 12 | 4 | 2 | 4 rounds | 2010 | 12/28/12 |
| Journal of Financial Econometrics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Reject and resubmit. Report from ref1 and AE were very helpful. Ref2 was not | 2020 | 09/29/20 |
| Journal of Financial Econometrics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/28/12 | |
| Journal of Financial Econometrics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Not a good fit. | 2018 | 05/09/19 |
| Journal of Financial Econometrics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 1 month to wait for a desk reject is too long. "We are hesitant to publish purely empirical papers" comment could have been boilerplate but seemed uninformative | 2013 | 05/22/14 |
| Journal of Financial Econometrics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Not a good fit. One month for the desk reject. | 2018 | 09/13/18 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Exceptionally quick turnaround times. Referee was sharp, thoughtful, and thorough. (However, because there was only one referee, whose specialty aligned with only part of the paper, he/she barely attempted to comment on much of the paper, perhaps to its detriment.) | 2020 | 05/31/21 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Exceptionally quick turnaround times. Referee was sharp, thoughtful, and thorough. (However, because there was only one referee, whose specialty aligned with only part of the paper, he/she barely attempted to comment on much of the paper, perhaps to its detriment.) | 2020 | 05/31/21 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 1 | relatively fast process and referee helped to improve the papers. might be a once in a career event. | 2008 | 05/22/14 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2012 | 12/22/12 | |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Accepted | 3 | N/A | 1 | 2014 | 05/17/14 | |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Accepted | 3 | N/A | 1 | 2014 | 05/17/14 | |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | A five pages fantasy report written by a phd-student who did not read the paper. I have no clue who the referee wanted to impress, maybe the editor? | 2015 | 02/02/17 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | 2 | 1 | Reject and resubmit. Rejected afterwards. | 2015 | 10/04/17 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Very poor quality referee report. | 2018 | 10/01/19 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Referee clearly didn't read the paper carefully. Comments were non-constructive and some were even wrong. Clearly the referee was someone not in the field of the paper (Asset Pricing). Said the contribution was not enough for a JFE publication. | 2017 | 08/17/17 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | The usual randomness from the JFE | 2014 | 05/25/14 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Reject based on a priori feeling of the reviewer with no scientific arguments but rather personal perception of her/his reading. Next time, I will come back with a vip or friend of the editorial team to have positive a priori. | 2016 | 12/09/16 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | got the impression that the reviewer did not read the paper and decided to dispute the review, the dispute process took slightly more than 1 month and the new reviewer sided with the old reviewer. also received comments from the old reviewer that were better than the first review. overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness | 2012 | 05/22/14 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | An low quality and useless report | 2014 | 12/06/14 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | referee report was of little help | 2012 | 12/30/12 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Referee did not bother to read the paper. | 2019 | 07/09/20 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Referee misread the paper, and hammered us on points that we were not making. Tyranny of the single review. The saving grace is that it was fast. | 2017 | 10/06/17 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 1 | No response for seven and a half months. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. Go report in 2 days. Hastily written by PhD student. No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. Just thoroughly unprofessional report. Something like that should not leave even an undergrad's desk. | 2015 | 11/17/16 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 day rejection | 2013 | 02/26/14 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | had to pay $100 instead of the usual submission fee. Deemed too narrow for the journal | 2013 | 05/22/14 |
| Journal of Financial Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. The worst experience so far. It was almost like somebody pickpocketed and got my $600 | 2013 | 02/26/14 |
| Journal of Financial Intermediation | Accepted | 3 | 9 | 1 | Massive work. Four RR rounds. In the first three, the referees took 3 months and tehn 9 months to take care of comments. The paper is mostly empirical and they asked for massive extension of the dataset. This was high risk but of course at the end worth it because it is a good journal. | 2015 | 02/19/19 |
| Journal of Financial Intermediation | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2012 | 12/27/12 | |
| Journal of Financial Intermediation | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Nice experience. Very constructive comments in the 1st round, quicking converging in the 2nd round. | 2018 | 02/26/19 |
| Journal of Financial Intermediation | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Financial Intermediation | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | 2013 | 03/18/14 | |
| Journal of Financial Intermediation | Ref Reject | 6 | 3 | 2 | Very bad experience as referee kept asking for more and more and finally said document was now too long and findings not interesting enough. Editor should know better. | 2018 | 05/26/20 |
| Journal of Financial Intermediation | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us | 2013 | 10/28/13 |
| Journal of Financial Intermediation | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | The quality of the report was disappointing. | 2012 | 03/19/14 |
| Journal of Financial Intermediation | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Very slow process. Referee didn't buy identification strategy. | 2021 | 01/15/22 |
| Journal of Financial Intermediation | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | editor was helpful in replying to inquiry regarding reason for desk rejection. said it was a matter of fit. paper took over a month to get desk rejected because of problems with elsevier system. journal does not sound like a good fit for my research agenda. topics should probably be closely related to banking | 2014 | 07/14/14 |
| Journal of Financial Intermediation | Desk Reject | 0 | 1 | 0 | $ 200 is high for an immediat desk rejection | 2014 | 08/27/14 |
| Journal of Financial Markets | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Near-perfect experience. Extremely helpful comments that significantly improved the paper in the end. Great editor with quick response time too. | 2013 | 08/01/13 |
| Journal of Financial Markets | Ref Reject | 1 | 1 | 1 | Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied even though I got a fast rejection. | 2012 | 08/02/13 |
| Journal of Financial Markets | Ref Reject | 3 | 4 | 1 | Rejected for arbitrary reasons. Referee said he just didn't like the paper. | 2020 | 07/15/20 |
| Journal of Financial Markets | Ref Reject | 2 | 2 | 1 | Scam. Revise and Resubmit. Referee claims no revisements were made after substantial revisements were made and detailed. This journal is a scam! | 2019 | 10/14/19 |
| Journal of Financial Markets | Ref Reject | 4 | 5 | 2 | After revise and resubmit, was rejected, Next year, similar article appeared in the journal authored by one of the associate editors. Remarkable coincidence. | 2018 | 10/22/19 |
| Journal of Financial Markets | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 2 | Scam. Revise and Resubmit. Referee claims no revisements were made after substantial revisements were made and detailed. This journal is a scam! | 2020 | 07/13/20 |
| Journal of Financial Markets | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Poor report! Referee only comments on the first half of the paper. That indicates he/she did not finish reading the paper. He/she also asked unrelated information such as why the market offer two similar contracts,... which is not the scope of the study. He/she also asked for the summary statistics of my high frequency data while I already provided the estimates of bid-ask spread, price impact, order flow autocorrelation of each month for the entire contracts which shows his lack of knowledge about market microstructure. The editor, Gideon Saar, was lazy and did not read the paper. He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. My experience with other journals when there is only 1 referee, the editor always provides a report detailing their reasons for accepting or rejecting the paper. JFM is bad! | 2018 | 03/05/19 |
| Journal of Financial Markets | Ref Reject | 5 | 3 | 2 | Useless reports. Poor / no justification for decision. Expected better | 2019 | 11/22/19 |
| Journal of Financial Markets | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision | 2013 | 05/22/14 |
| Journal of Financial Markets | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 2011 | 12/28/12 | |
| Journal of Financial Research | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Financial Research | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2012 | 02/12/13 | |
| Journal of Financial Research | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | Good referee report | 2013 | 01/16/14 |
| Journal of Financial Research | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. Not for the faint-hearted. | 2016 | 01/03/17 |
| Journal of Financial Services Research | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | overall v good experience. ref report had useful but not overly comprehensive suggestions. quick and clear communication with editor | 2016 | 07/10/17 |
| Journal of Financial Services Research | Ref Reject | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2011 | 12/29/12 | |
| Journal of Forecasting | Pending | 0 | 1 | 0 | For three months the editor has not assigned referees! Have contacted the editorail asistant three times (startung six weeks after submission) who said she would remind the editor. Finally, I have now wothdrawn my paper. | 2018 | 02/05/19 |
| Journal of Forecasting | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rapid desk reject - editor stated paper was rejected because of applied context (sports) | 2018 | 06/16/19 |
| Journal of Futures Markets | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 1 | Good reports, led to significantly better paper | 2012 | 03/19/14 |
| Journal of Happiness Studies | Pending | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2019 | 05/27/19 | |
| Journal of Happiness Studies | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 2 | Long process. Fair editors. | 2012 | 04/29/14 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2021 | 03/06/21 | |
| Journal of Health Economics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2021 | 05/18/21 | |
| Journal of Health Economics | Accepted | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2014 | 01/04/16 | |
| Journal of Health Economics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 3 | Good experience, nice though critical editor, total time to acceptance 10 months | 2013 | 11/13/14 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Accepted | 7 | 1 | 1 | Couldn;t get second referee so editor said he read carefully himself. Explains longish time to first review. | 2013 | 05/22/14 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Accepted | 4 | 5 | 2 | Total time to acceptance: 13 months | 2012 | 12/30/13 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | One positive one negative. The negative one says there is no methodology novelty. | 2018 | 04/17/19 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | one positive one negative, editor chose to reject. | 2015 | 03/30/16 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 2013 | 06/20/13 | |
| Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Reviewers' concerns are reasonable but they didn't provide helpful suggestions | 2015 | 03/29/16 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2013 | 09/24/13 | |
| Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Pretty efficient turnaround. One extremely thorough and helpful report, one shorter but still raising valid points. All the points are addressable so I would've liked an RR but I'm not part of the club so I can't complain. Overall a good experience that will help the paper! | 2016 | 08/01/16 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Short unhelpful referee reports which ask to cite referees. Editor sat on completed reports for 3 months before making a decision. | 2014 | 08/16/15 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Decent reports. Recommended to try other health journals. | 2017 | 04/28/18 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | 1 | 3 | two positive reports and one strongly negative report; the editor Andrew Street gave me a R&R; after I spent one month writing a 30-page response, the negative referee still argued against my paper based on his misunderstanding of my paper; the editor finally chose to reject my paper based on the comments of this referee without careful reading | 2017 | 11/13/17 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. Oh well | 2021 | 08/13/21 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Rejected with one referee report in just under a month. Helpful comments from reviewer and editor. Wish the outcome was different, but the turnaround time couldn't have been better. | 2019 | 08/20/19 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Only one report but good comments. | 2014 | 02/24/15 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Not very helpful comments | 2015 | 09/02/15 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 03/12/15 | |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Single line rejection. | 2015 | 12/14/16 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Following a previous piece of info: Desk rejected by another editor after almost 2 months, looking at the reason for rejecting the paper I had the feeling the editor did not read the paper. | 2014 | 12/18/14 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 01/23/13 | |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | It took almost two month for a desk reject. Such a waste of my valuable time. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. I will never submit to this journal. | 2015 | 03/12/15 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | About 3 weeks turnaround. Comments just so-so. Just didn't seem to believe paper, but without any really good reason. | 2013 | 12/30/13 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 01/10/13 | |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 09/06/13 | |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Avoid this journal by any means. The editors are public health monkeys. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. I had much better experience in American Journal of Health Economics. | 2015 | 03/12/15 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 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. | 2014 | 12/18/14 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Editor was Andrew Street. Pretty stupid rationale based on lack of methodological innovation. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica. | 2017 | 10/09/17 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 2 weeks. Editor (frank) did not read the paper and wrote 2 lines arguing that there were many papers addressing similar question (which was not entirely true). No discussion on the ID strategy, nor the novelty of the data. | 2014 | 02/25/15 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor rejected within less than 10 days. Reason cited: weak paper | 2019 | 04/12/21 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after few days with some useful suggestions. | 2013 | 05/09/13 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Very slow and no much reason given for desk rejection | 2013 | 11/26/13 |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Health Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Culter said that there was backlog at JHE. 2 months for desk rejection is awkward. | 2014 | 03/13/15 |
| Journal of Housing Economics | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Very good experience. Fast turnaround and good comments. | 2017 | 10/01/19 |
| Journal of Housing Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | excellent editor | 2013 | 04/22/14 |
| Journal of Housing Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | Was rejected today by editor as only 1/2 referee reports submitted. The report I did get back (in the form of an email from the editor) was not very informative (referee claimed "expressing time series as deviations from trend does not produce a stationary time series". I stopped reading after that). | 2017 | 02/23/18 |
| Journal of Housing Economics | Ref Reject | 0 | 12 | 2 | This Rumors site allows only a maximum of 12 months from submission to decision. Actually took nearly 15 months. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. | 2019 | 04/07/20 |
| Journal of Housing Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Thanks for nothing, A. Saiz | 2014 | 03/25/14 |
| Journal of Human Capital | Pending | 13 | N/A | 1 | . | 2011 | 12/21/12 |
| Journal of Human Capital | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | 2011 | 12/21/12 | |
| Journal of Human Capital | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. Not a great experience! | 2018 | 11/07/18 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Pending | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2008 | 12/21/12 | |
| Journal of Human Resources | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2019 | 02/03/20 | |
| Journal of Human Resources | Pending | 2 | N/A | 1 | Currently in R&R. Editor was our de facto 2nd referee. | 2016 | 11/12/16 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Pending | 2 | N/A | 2 | One magnificient + one so-so ref report. Good comments from the editor. Will submit again. | 2019 | 07/18/20 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | very good experience...fast and helpful comments from the co-editor and two referees...Average time between the submission and response is about 1.5 months | 2016 | 11/27/16 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 3 | Most efficient experience with journals ever! | 2018 | 07/13/19 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 3 | well run journal. RR time was only 2 weeks, no bullshit nitpicking | 2013 | 04/29/13 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 2 | Two straightforward reports calling for revision. Accepted 1 1/2 weeks after revision was submitted. No BS, great experience! | 2015 | 08/02/15 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 2 | Extremely efficient. Good reports with decent suggestions. | 2012 | 04/17/14 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Accepted | 3 | 4 | 2 | This was back when Bill Evans was editor. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words. | 2009 | 04/08/13 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2016 | 09/10/19 | |
| Journal of Human Resources | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | One very good referee report, one useless one. The editor read the paper in great details and added a lot of comments to the referees'. | 2015 | 05/19/17 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Very good referee reports. Constructive and helpful comments from the co-editor. | 2014 | 10/17/15 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 3 | The editor was Christian Pop-Eliches. Pretty useless referee reports. 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. | 2017 | 08/11/17 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | One almost non-existent referee report (basically two lines just saying the paper is not broad enough), one very detailed and overall positive report. I was surprised these two letters resulted in the overall reject | 2019 | 05/13/20 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very quick. Split recommendations, editor decided to reject which is fair enough. One good quality referee with good comments and suggestions. The other reviewer I suspect of being a graduate student with not so good comments. Good experience as far as rejections go. | 2020 | 05/22/20 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | One positive report, one negative, editor's reject decision. Negative report is pretty bad. Some useful comments, most misreads and poor understanding of model. | 2014 | 02/26/15 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very quick. Split recommendations, editor decided to reject which is fair enough. One good quality referee with good comments and suggestions. The other reviewer I suspect of being a graduate student with not so good comments. Good experience as far as rejections go. | 2020 | 05/22/20 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | 2020 | 12/16/20 | |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Rejected on the basis of wrong comments. The editor did not even get that the comments were wrong. | 2016 | 08/02/16 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/21/12 | |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 08/02/16 | |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2021 | 01/24/22 | |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 3 | Slow turnover. Average Report. | 2017 | 05/08/18 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Reviews were fair. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. | 2020 | 06/17/20 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | One positive report, one negative. Very kind letter from the editor. Disappointed with the result, but the experience was okay. | 2017 | 01/04/18 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Awesome experience. Both referees really spent time on the paper and gave lots of suggestions.So did the editor. | 2014 | 08/17/14 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. Reports were not very helpful. One referee commented that we didn't make a methodological contribution and asked why economists should care about Y. The other referee was concerned about the limitations of the identification strategy, but the same strategy has been used in other studies (some are in top field journals). | 2016 | 10/11/16 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | One positive report, one negative. Very kind letter from the editor. Disappointed with the result, but the experience was okay. | 2017 | 01/04/18 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. I had notice that it was sent to reviewers in | 2017 | 12/05/17 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | I love this journal. Two fantastic referee reports within 1.5 months. Valid rejection. | 2015 | 01/06/16 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/21/12 | |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Two month for two detailed reports. Helpful comments from the editor | 2020 | 05/12/21 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | solid referee reports, fair editor | 2013 | 05/29/13 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | One not very helpful/professional report. No real comments from the editor other than 'I agree with the report'. Not a great experience. Wouldn't submit here again. | 2021 | 11/10/21 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. $100 fee refunded | 2017 | 09/04/18 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | The editor said that enjoyed the paper very much but the contributon is not sufficiently broad for a general interest journal as JHR and fits better into a labour journal. Very fast. I didn't know that JHR is a general interest journal! | 2015 | 05/06/15 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desh rejected in less than a week. Great comments from editor. | 2013 | 04/23/13 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | not broad enough, it seems that JHR considers themselves as a general interest journal. | 2014 | 06/19/14 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick desk reject, apparently considers itself a GI journal now (?) | 2015 | 08/16/15 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick reject, saying go to field. | 2016 | 07/27/16 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/31/12 | |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | 2011 | 01/02/13 | |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected within 3 days with idiotic comments, as usual. Standard experience with the JHR. Waste of money. Note: previous desk rejected paper there was published in a much better journal. I feel that mediocre editors are too scared to consider papers unless at least one of the authors is a big shot. If you don't have that - expect to be desk rejected. | 2020 | 05/05/21 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | In three days. referred to field journal | 2016 | 07/14/16 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | your paper, after some updating to reflect the recent complementary literature, would be more appropriate for a more specialized journal | 2015 | 06/09/15 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | It took 3 weeks to get a desk reject letter. | 2021 | 12/05/21 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/22/12 | |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). In terms of rejections this is probably as good as it gets. | 2016 | 07/14/16 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 16 hour turnaround with nice letter of thoughtful comments suggesting more specialized journal. editing team is real class act | 2016 | 09/30/16 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected but the co-editor read the manuscript carefully and gave substantive comments. | 2020 | 04/06/20 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Devreaux desk reject. No comments. | 2014 | 04/09/14 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". Suggests a field journal. Fast and fair enough. | 2014 | 02/08/15 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk rejected in a week. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable comment...very well run journal, fast and no submission fee! will definitely try it again next time | 2016 | 11/27/16 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Less than insightful comments by an editor clearly hastily read the paper. Fast but shallow. | 2017 | 08/13/17 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject within 14 hours(!!!). Comments weren't helpful, but at least they didn't waste my time. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least. | 2016 | 08/30/16 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject within a few days. Apparently JHE considers itself general interest. No comments, but very fast. | 2013 | 03/17/14 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2021 | 08/11/21 | |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". Suggests a field journal. Fast and fair enough. | 2014 | 02/08/15 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 3 weeks for a desk reject...and they keep the $100. | 2018 | 05/28/18 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk rejected in a week. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable comment...very well run journal, fast and no submission fee! will definitely try it again next time | 2016 | 11/27/16 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | very sad | 2013 | 02/20/13 |
| Journal of Human Resources | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 9 days. Editor read and carefully considered the paper. Suggested changes and several other outlets. | 2019 | 07/17/19 |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Pending | 6 | 5 | 2 | Referees' comments were useful. paper is short so 6 months for each round is very long. Bar-Isaak is the editor in charge (much better than others like nocke). professional. | 2013 | 12/25/15 |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. R&R was helpful. | 2012 | 02/28/13 |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. Tough but fair referee reports. Rigor of the paper increased greatly because of the refereeing process. | 2015 | 12/26/16 |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | low-quality referee reports. Dislike for the computational results for no good reason. One referee suggests alternative data sources for robustness even though it took as a year to hand-collect the original data. | 2020 | 07/08/20 |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 01/29/13 | |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Two decent referee reports. Good reasons for rejection; comments improved paper for next submission. | 2017 | 01/11/18 |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 02/15/13 | |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | weird referee, probably a grad student | 2012 | 02/27/13 |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 08/02/13 | |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | awful report...referee asked "why is this a problem?" | 2012 | 03/06/13 |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Ref Reject | 12 | N/A | 1 | slow but fair | 2013 | 01/19/17 |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | One referee reports is only 2 short paragraphs long and completely wrong. The referee is clearly not up to the task. The second one is ok, but rejects for some peculiar reasons. | 2015 | 01/13/16 |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 14 days. Some nice words from the editor. | 2017 | 01/17/18 |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | To be honest, I had a hard time understanding exactly what the point of your paper is. 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. In any case, the paper is not a good match for the JIE, both because it is highly technical and (more importantly) because it is more of a trade theory paper than an IO paper. | 2014 | 08/22/14 |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/29/13 | |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 8 days for a desk rejection. The Editor mentioned that the paper is outside the scope of the Journal. He suggested a general interest journal. | 2016 | 10/21/16 |
| Journal of Industrial Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Very inefficient desk! | 2012 | 06/03/13 |
| Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade | Accepted | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2014 | 04/27/15 | |
| Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | Fair and efficient process. Referee was constructive and provided helpful comments. Good experience | 2019 | 06/24/19 |
| Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Referee just pointed put | 2012 | 01/04/13 |
| Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 05/03/13 | |
| Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics | Accepted | 12 | 4 | 2 | Extremely valuable referee reports and advices from the editor. Two rounds of R&R, final acceptance after second round within 5 days. | 2017 | 12/26/18 |
| Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Ok referee reports. Editor was a bit harsh. | 2014 | 01/29/15 |
| Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 14 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 05/19/15 | |
| Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 11 | N/A | 2 | 2017 | 01/16/18 | |
| Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Very good reports even though the paper was rejected. | 2013 | 04/17/14 |
| Journal of Institutional Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Split reports but very clear advice from editor. Quick turnaround upon revision. | 2013 | 01/29/15 |
| Journal of Institutional Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Very good experience. Had 2 tough but fair r&r rounds with 2 reviewers and 1 with the editor. Good turnaround time. The editor is responsive. The process had only one negative side; the reviewers implicitly asked to cite their works. | 2016 | 06/21/17 |
| Journal of Institutional Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Very efficient process. 1 short report (but good points) and 1 very long report. After the second round R&R, I only had to deal with the long reviewer. Overall good experience. | 2013 | 01/28/15 |
| Journal of Institutional Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 4 | Tough referee process, won over 3, 4th still had doubts but Editor pushed ahead. Good comments, made the paper better. | 2019 | 06/03/20 |
| Journal of Institutional Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 3 | Incredibly tough process with three rounds of revisions - first round ended up me writing a response as long as the original paper. Second round was down to one ref and editor, third round was just editor. Despite being so tough, all comments were fair and refs wrote great reports that dramatically improved the paper. | 2016 | 07/22/16 |
| Journal of Institutional Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 01/18/13 | |
| Journal of Institutional Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 14 days. Some nice words from the editor. | 2017 | 01/17/18 |
| Journal of International Development | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Very slow and the reason for rejection was not good enough. | 2015 | 03/20/15 |
| Journal of International Development | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | editor said the paper had too much economics | 2012 | 04/27/13 |
| Journal of International Economics | Accepted | 7 | 3 | 4 | The editor was very helpful to summarize what he thought should be done from 4 referee reports | 2014 | 09/27/16 |
| Journal of International Economics | Accepted | 2 | 5 | 2 | Reports have very clear constructive instructions and fast response. | 2015 | 04/20/16 |
| Journal of International Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Good experience. Editor (Taylor) gave additional advice. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. Outright accept after first resubmission still came as a surprise given JIE typically has 2-3 rounds. | 2014 | 05/03/15 |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Two very constructive reports. Overall, great experience despite the negative outcome | 2020 | 09/14/20 |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 13 | 11 | 1 | The WORST experience of my rather long life. An incompetent referee and an editor that could not care less of how slow the process was: a lethal combo | 2013 | 01/24/17 |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 06/01/14 | |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Quick decision, with some useful comments in the reports. Overall good experience | 2015 | 04/05/17 |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | He suspects he could not understand a yota. Now? it ?could ?be ?the ?case ?that ?I ?have? completely ?misread? the? paper.? If? so,? I? apologize.? In? my ?defense,? however,? the? writing? is ?so ?poor? that ?no? one ?could ?understand? it.?I? would? recommend ?that? the ?author? re?write ?the ?paper ?with ?the ?help ?of ?some one? fluent ?in? English. This? is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? the ?Nash? bargaining? solution? of? a? cooperative? game (can anyone confirm this?)? . | 2009 | 04/30/14 |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 2 | Fair decision, referee reports pointed out major flaw but hardly in a way that could be called constructive | 2015 | 01/18/16 |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Referee reports were very good, constructive and tough. Both suggested rejection. They will help to improve the paper. Clearly the paper was not good enough for the JIE. | 2018 | 12/06/18 |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | Overall decent and professional expert reports. Horrible associate editor, Arkolakis, rejected based on his personal views. So unprofessional and shameful. | 2018 | 07/05/20 |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | 2014 | 01/22/15 | |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | ref report was ok | 2011 | 01/19/13 |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | One useless report, and one very useful report. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. His own comments were not based on the reports. Probably he sent the paper to referees because he couldn't desk reject it, but his mind was made-up before hand. | 2016 | 03/16/17 |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Low quality referee reports. One seems to be written by a first-year bachelor student. Waste of time. | 2016 | 12/18/16 |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | reports are helpful | 2011 | 01/19/13 |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | 2 detailed comments from referees. These advices do make the paper better. | 2019 | 04/28/19 |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2021 | 01/11/22 | |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2015 | 05/07/15 | |
| Journal of International Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2010 | 08/02/13 | |
| Journal of International Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick. | 2021 | 08/31/21 |
| Journal of International Economics | Desk Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | took the money. took 5 months. desk rejected. no comments given. totally useless editor. | 2013 | 02/12/14 |
| Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. The editor does not respond to emails. | 2016 | 09/29/17 |
| Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money | Pending | 18 | 12 | 0 | Had to withdraw after waiting for nearly a year and a half. | 2016 | 10/20/17 |
| Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Transfer from another Elsevier journal - additional round of R&R but easily satisfied and made the paper better. Smooth experience, although a bit slow in getting to the paper (quick when they actually did) | 2019 | 03/24/20 |
| Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money | Accepted | 4 | N/A | 0 | My paper was transferred after rejected from a higher ranked journal. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. Note that since the editor(Batten) is handling many different journals at the same time, you should expect relatively slow turnaround time. | 2014 | 09/23/15 |
| Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 4 | OK process, but some reports were useless. Sometimes Batten took a long time to make a decision after the reviews were completed, but he was fair. | 2021 | 03/14/22 |
| Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Reports included four small bullet points with badly written English. The referee seems like a first year PhD student who struggled with the notion of left tails. This is expected as I am not part of the editor's inner circle. Don't know why Elsevier is silence about this behavior from Batten. | 2021 | 02/13/22 |
| Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Very easy suggested an appropriate transfer and levied the submission fees, with editor providing quite helpful comments. Rather pleasant experience. | 2019 | 08/03/19 |
| Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Out of Scope? After 4 months? Amazing | 2020 | 05/18/20 |
| Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject from editor after 4 months | 2014 | 02/02/15 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Accepted | 11 | 3 | 1 | 2011 | 09/10/13 | |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Accepted | 7 | 2 | 2 | Very helpful reports. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. The reports are also very helpful. The whole process took about a little bit more than a year, which is very good. | 2018 | 11/16/19 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Accepted | 12 | 8 | 2 | very, very slow | 2009 | 01/10/13 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 1 | Fast process. Good comments from the referee. I recommend. | 2016 | 03/13/17 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Accepted | 6 | 2 | 2 | Very good experience, the editor (Aizenman) was very fast | 2017 | 11/04/17 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 1 | Fair referee reports and smooth process | 2015 | 01/07/16 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Very efficient process, better than expected. | 2016 | 12/02/16 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 1 | Very clear referee report with constructive comments. Also revisions handled quite efficiently! | 2013 | 10/29/14 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Accepted | 1 | N/A | 1 | Took 6 weeks. Good report. No complaints. | 2015 | 09/27/15 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 10 | 10 | 2 | Horrible experience, late response, useless report, | 2018 | 12/08/19 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Four line referee report written in a hurry before deadline and before ref obviously had to jet off on holiday. In only four sentences, ref manages to contradict himself. Worthless garbage report, no redeeming value. | 2019 | 07/25/19 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | Poor experience, will not submit again. 7 months waiting for one poor referee report rejecting the paper for an unwarranted wording issue. | 2017 | 12/12/17 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Incredible experience: referee said he/she didn't like the paper. Zero constructive comments! Editor decided to reject it. Poorly managed journal. | 2015 | 01/15/16 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 12 | N/A | 1 | Worst experience ever... nearly one year just to hear "not much new, therefore reject"... 100 bucks for nothing. 0/10 would recommend. **** this journal | 2021 | 12/07/21 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Poor reports. One referee was OK with almost no comments. Second one didn't understand the paper and said it was already written. Editors are not reading referee reports. | 2015 | 01/15/16 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | My paper was in "submitted" status for almost 5 months when made a query. The response was I forgot to pay the submission fee. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending...). Still, I have to contact them again after 9 weeks because they did nothing with my paper. 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). Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. | 2017 | 08/29/18 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Single-blind review system for a 250 bucks fee. At least, you expect some quality report. Instead, the reviewer says you did not cite a literature that is totally beside the point, the main concept of your paper is not mentioned not even once in that literature. End of story. | 2020 | 09/13/20 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 01/19/13 | |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | 1 report suggesting to cite the Editor's work and speaking about things outside of the scope of the paper. Editor rejected without comments. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. | 2013 | 01/16/14 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Ridicolous report: 3 lines where the referee asked to address "geopolitical" issues | 2011 | 01/09/13 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | First report provided helpful insights, second - only half page of general comments. | 2019 | 11/25/19 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Ridiculous report by the most clueless referee who probably spend one hour only to read and review the paper altogether. Comments like "I do not understand the findings of this study" show that the journal is not what it used to be. The referees should be (far) better than the illiterate idiot they gave me! | 2019 | 04/30/19 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | Bad experience, there was a long wait of mroe than 10 months to get 2 referee reports that did not like the the paper (but not so sure why). Each report was less than 600 words long with 3-4 main comments but not in much dept (not even full references included). To get rejected in a good journal, that is ok since it is part of the business but waiting 10 moths for refereee reports of that quality was a really bad deal. | 2013 | 08/28/14 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | Horrible experience. Over half a year for response from one referee who a) had no problems with the methodology, b) liked the writing, and c) thought it had a novel contribution. Recommended reject because he thought the sample of countries wasn't broad enough (despite it being a paper on a specific set of countries on purpose, as explained in the methodology). One paragraph that dismissed four years of work. Editor then agreed. Will never submit here again. | 2014 | 01/16/15 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | Useful report | 2013 | 09/22/13 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 1 report ok, the other one awful, Referee clearly did not understand the paper. Editor skimmed it at best and decided to reject without comments. Bad experience. | 2013 | 11/19/13 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 1 | terrible experience, after submission my paper was not sent out to referees for more than 6 months. After two interventions got 1 ridiculous report. | 2017 | 04/10/19 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Associate editor rejected on poor grounds. At least the process was fast. | 2014 | 02/02/15 |
| Journal of International Money and Finance | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250 | 2020 | 08/21/20 |
| Journal of International Trade and Economic Development | Accepted | 6 | 2 | 2 | Giles in a nice editor | 2013 | 10/25/14 |
| Journal of International Trade and Economic Development | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 2 | Giles is a great editor. The paper was accepted few days after the revised version has been submitted. Would not hesitate to submit to this journal in the future. Nice experience!!! | 2020 | 01/26/21 |
| Journal of International Trade and Economic Development | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | Good experience. Two short referee reports straight to the point. | 2014 | 06/15/15 |
| Journal of International Trade and Economic Development | Ref Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Unfortunately the paper is rejected but I hope the reports help you improve the paper for another journal. | 2007 | 04/23/14 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Very nice words from the editor but useless referee reports. | 2016 | 03/14/17 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 12/30/12 | |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Some good comments from referees, overall a good experience | 2016 | 05/17/17 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very fast process. Two careful reports with good feedback. | 2019 | 03/08/20 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Very low quality report. Referee makes a factually inaccurate claim about previous research, and misinterprets interaction terms. | 2017 | 09/27/17 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | One fairly high-quality report, one not-so good. 6 months was a lot to wait for one good report though... | 2015 | 03/07/16 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 0 | 1 | 2 | Good feedback. I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. | 2020 | 07/16/20 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | rejected but with good reports. | 2018 | 03/04/19 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Referee 2 was completely positive and was clearly knowledgeable of field. Referee one was inexpert in the field, and suggested we cite mostly irrelevant papers published by the handling editor | 2018 | 06/16/19 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | a bit slow...two general positive+one negative reports, and the editor rejected it...feel sad, but not too bad experience... | 2016 | 03/22/17 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Average (low) quality reports. At least was fast at just over two months. My previous rejection there was north of 6 months... | 2016 | 09/04/16 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | 6 | 2 | Painful, but overall fair. | 2017 | 03/02/19 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | One very low quality report, one very thorough report. The letter from the editor suggests that he/she did not have a firm grasp of the paper. | 2013 | 07/01/14 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Excellent and helpful comments from both referees and the editor | 2016 | 06/16/19 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Pretty fast, the reports are good. Can't complain with the decision and the entire process. | 2016 | 01/24/17 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | One good, one bad referee report. | 2014 | 06/30/14 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Much quicker response than suggestsed. One referee was amazing, the other one added no value. Was pleased with the process, besides the rejection. | 2015 | 11/15/15 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Very nice words from the editor but useless referee reports. | 2016 | 03/14/17 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Awfully slow for a desk reject, but at least the editor gave a couple of helpful comments and it was clear he'd read the paper with care. | 2018 | 04/26/19 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 10/22/15 | |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected by editor, who said that editor in chief rejects ~40% and he rejects about the same | 2017 | 09/19/17 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject within few days | 2015 | 04/07/15 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject within 2 days | 2017 | 08/25/17 |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 01/11/13 | |
| Journal of Labor Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected within 4 days with a decent explanation | 2016 | 07/24/17 |
| Journal of Labor Research | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 01/07/13 | |
| Journal of Labor Research | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2017 | 11/19/17 | |
| Journal of Labor Research | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 06/03/14 | |
| Journal of Law and Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | One single bad report. A lot of small nit-picky criticism and some factually wrong statements about paper. | 2014 | 07/08/14 |
| Journal of Law and Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | On its face, the referee provided a good report, but once I dug into the details, it was clear he didn't understand my identification strategy. My fault for not discussing that up front. | 2013 | 07/17/14 |
| Journal of Law and Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/21/12 | |
| Journal of Law and Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | Excellent, useful comments by editor, but report was not helpful (as correctly noted by editor) and 5.5 months is a long time for one report. | 2015 | 02/14/16 |
| Journal of Law and Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | 5 | 1 | 4 months for first report, 5 months for second, only to be rejected by referee. Fair enough reasons why, but would have appreciated less time. | 2016 | 01/11/18 |
| Journal of Law and Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 02/15/13 | |
| Journal of Law and Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 2017 | 06/19/17 | |
| Journal of Law and Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | 2013 | 02/28/14 | |
| Journal of Law and Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2009 | 01/11/13 | |
| Journal of Law and Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in less than 24 hours | 2014 | 09/30/14 |
| Journal of Law and Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | editoral. Paper was internally valid-(ish) but not a big enough contribution | 2018 | 03/13/18 |
| Journal of Law and Economics | Desk Reject | 6 | 6 | 0 | +6 months for a desk rejection without a single comment. Enough said. | 2017 | 12/19/17 |
| Journal of Law and Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | 1 | 0 | actually submitted in 2017; desk rejection after 1 week; short and friendly answer of editor; however inconclusive | 2016 | 02/14/17 |
| Journal of Law and Economics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | desk reject after three months... editor claimed they did not publish papers on this topic but they bogh b | 2011 | 12/24/12 |
| Journal of Legal Studies | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | Took 7 months to get one referee report. The report had a few good notes but none that really seemed to disqualify the paper from getting an R&R. Seems largely like the referee just didn't like it and the editor wanted there to be more significant results (publication bias at its best) | 2015 | 08/02/16 |
| Journal of Legal Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Reasonably quick. One detailed report. Some fair comments. Some not so fair. Paper is about a politically charged issue, so I would like to think that more than one reviewer should be asked to submit a report. | 2019 | 05/14/19 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Very efficient process. Two excellent referee reports. | 2016 | 11/25/16 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 3 | N/A | 2 | Excellent and rapid process, with clear comments and instructions from referees and editor | 2015 | 06/16/19 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 1 | 3 | 1 | Referee's comment was useful but contained too many extensions. Editor told us to what extent the comment should be addressed. Appreciate fast review and efficient process. | 2021 | 02/02/22 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2014 | 06/30/15 | |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2014 | 02/25/15 | |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Useful reports and fast turnaround. Very pleased. | 2018 | 06/14/18 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | Very fast and efficient. The reviewer recommended accept after seeing the revision. | 2019 | 09/19/19 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Very quick and professional editing. Great experience! | 2012 | 11/19/13 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | Very fast and efficient. | 2019 | 06/01/20 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Fair enough. | 2013 | 10/26/13 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Laughable report (where do they find these clueless idiots?). Complained. Editor uninterested. Weak journal I knew, but surprised how weak and unprofessional. | 2018 | 02/15/19 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | Incredible experience: one of the referee report told us that a working paper was published on almost the same subject (and justifies our rejection)... but this working paper was published 5 months after our submission ! | 2012 | 10/24/13 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | Very bad referee reports | 2012 | 01/14/14 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Two ref reports in 8 days. It seems they rushed to reject it. Reports are not great. | 2014 | 07/24/14 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Reject. Report very critical but useful nonetheless. | 2014 | 12/24/14 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 1 | This is the letter I sent to the editor of JME: | 2013 | 05/28/14 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor was insufficient in evaluating our paper and rejected it due to a paper cited in the reference list! His reports were completely crap. Crappy journal with crappy editor. | 2016 | 05/22/17 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected within one day. The editor VanHoose made some good comments though. | 2017 | 12/23/17 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 05/22/17 | |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick desk reject (3 days). Editor provided a letter with comments. The comments were not helpful, but at least I know that the editor has a strong bias towards the method. | 2018 | 12/05/18 |
| Journal of Macroeconomics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk-rejected after one week without any substantial or specific comment, apart recommending to submit to a specialist journal. | 2020 | 07/21/20 |
| Journal of Mathematical Economics | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 3 | It took 4 months to get the reviews, but the reviews were excellent. The three reviewers really went through the proof, I was a little impressed by their comments. The final version of the proof was more elegant as a result, I am very appreciative of the reviewers and the editor. There are some great papers in the journal; I would think it would get a higher impact factor. | 2014 | 11/27/16 |
| Journal of Mathematical Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 3 | Very efficient process with explicit timeline. Insightful and reasonable referee reports. | 2020 | 11/23/20 |
| Journal of Mathematical Economics | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2010 | 11/17/13 | |
| Journal of Mathematical Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | Referee really helped me to improve this paper with a great report. Editor didn't waste any time on accepting after first revision. | 2011 | 03/01/13 |
| Journal of Mathematical Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Referee recommends conditional accept but AE strongly against publication. Editor chose to follow the suggestion of the AE. Shame on you, AE. | 2019 | 02/24/20 |
| Journal of Mathematical Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 3 | Very useful referee reports. | 2014 | 07/27/14 |
| Journal of Mathematical Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 week. | 2015 | 08/21/17 |
| Journal of Mathematical Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Result are standard and no enough novelty! | 2015 | 08/17/15 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. I withdrew the paper. Submission is waste of time. | 2014 | 03/10/15 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Emailed journal to withdraw submission after 14 months. Heard nothing and received no replies to my emails | 2012 | 06/10/13 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Pending | 22 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 01/22/13 | |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Pending | 4 | N/A | 1 | 2018 | 10/06/18 | |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Pending | 8 | N/A | 0 | Reports submitted within one month. Going into the ninth month with no response. When do I give up? | 2014 | 03/11/15 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. I withdrew the paper. Submission is waste of time. | 2014 | 03/10/15 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Accepted | 8 | N/A | 1 | Best experience in my long career (20+ years, 10+ top publications). Editor (Reis) worked hard on paper to make it better. Rare experience where every round made paper much better. | 2014 | 08/18/16 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Accepted | 18 | 3 | 1 | It takes the editor a long time to respond but the comments are very helpful. It is a very demanding R&R and we revise the paper a lot according to the suggestions, but it is worthwhile. Not only is it accepted, but it also becomes a much better paper now. | 2012 | 07/18/15 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Accepted | 9 | 12 | 2 | Good handling by the editor (Reis). Very useful comments. Ended up being a better paper. | 2015 | 08/02/18 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Accepted | 11 | 5 | 1 | 2012 | 06/21/14 | |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 36 | 10 | 1 | 2008 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Was actually scared based off of runors I heard on this site. 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 | 2015 | 04/19/16 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Faster than I expected (3 months). It was clear the editor asked a former student to be the referee, I guess the editor does not feel positively about the paper. The referee cannot fully understand the model. The overall comments are OK. | 2020 | 12/07/21 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 2020 | 06/17/20 | |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | 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. | 2012 | 04/07/13 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | referee should go back to primary school | 2015 | 04/25/16 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 2020 | 06/17/20 | |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2021 | 12/06/21 | |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | I was worried about the wait, but in the end got a very good editorial letter (from Reis) with great suggestions. Followed up on them, sent it to another journal, and got accepted very quickly. Submitting to JME first was really worth it. | 2015 | 05/12/16 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 1 | Very weak report. Basically useless, a waste of time. | 2016 | 08/31/17 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 05/29/14 | |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 03/13/13 | |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Bad experience. Editor clearly asked some half-literate grad student to write a negative review. It was completely incoherent. No refund. But at least it was quick. | 2019 | 01/14/20 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. | 2017 | 06/05/17 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | 2011 | 12/21/12 | |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Relatively quickly/decent referee report | 2013 | 01/22/15 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 18 | N/A | 1 | OK comments from referee. Referee report was ready within a month after submission. Referee didn't think the contribution is significant enough, so straight reject. New editor apologized for the delay and handled the rejection quickly. | 2016 | 08/02/18 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Good comments, fast turnaround | 2016 | 05/17/16 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Desk Reject | 15 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 15 months... | 2017 | 04/28/18 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Desk Reject | 26 | N/A | 0 | 2 years no reply, then short letter and reject, I would never send there again | 2015 | 08/16/17 |
| Journal of Monetary Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | one day DR | 2021 | 09/23/21 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Pending | 4 | N/A | 1 | it was in 2016. Pok Sang Lam rejected with few comments. Referee did clearly said that the main mechanism is not compelling but did not give a single word on why our argument is persuasive or what else we could do to improve. | 2015 | 03/22/16 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Pending | 6 | N/A | 2 | Helpful comments. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. | 2016 | 11/13/16 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Accepted | 10 | 1 | 2 | very good experience and fast acceptance after addressing referees' comments | 2018 | 04/10/19 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Accepted | 6 | 5 | 3 | Very good referee reports. | 2011 | 04/06/13 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Accepted | 3 | 4 | 2 | Very constructive comments from Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) and referees. Improved the paper significantly. | 2013 | 03/22/15 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Accepted | 3 | 5 | 2 | Very constructive comments from Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) and referees. Improved the paper significantly. | 2012 | 02/01/15 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Very constructive suggestions. Very efficient process. | 2017 | 02/27/19 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2017 | 07/10/19 | |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Accepted | 11 | 3 | 2 | 2011 | 01/04/13 | |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | Good referee reports, but slow | 2016 | 06/28/17 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very efficient editorial process by Ken West. One very good report, another one heavily biased against methodology, yet helpful. | 2011 | 03/08/13 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 1 | Single report. Poor, self serving. Says model's too complex then suggests an addition which would have tripled the state space. Lots of puffed up explanation marks and faux outrage. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. Expected a lot better from this journal. | 2018 | 09/04/18 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | One referee report was very detailed. The other report also helped in improving the paper. | 2014 | 01/24/15 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 12 | N/A | 1 | 1 referee report after 1 year, referee did not like the idea, editor Pok-sang Lam | 2016 | 08/30/17 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 11 | N/A | 2 | 1 report half page long. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. way too long for a "standard" rejection. avoid | 2017 | 12/05/18 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 13 | N/A | 2 | 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. None of the criticism was fatal and most was stylistic. I expected better from this journal. | 2015 | 01/17/17 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Very weak reports. Really unfortunate waste of time. | 2018 | 10/11/18 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | 2 referee reports: 1 so-so and 1 extremely shitty. The shitty one referred to multiple papers in very low ranked journals authored by the same set of authors. Upon inspection these papers are only superficially related. Maybe the paper did not merit publication in JMCB but that referee report was really ridiculous. | 2014 | 10/03/14 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Referee seemed have read just the abstract. And he did not find the topic interesting. | 2014 | 04/29/15 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | 2013 | 03/18/14 | |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | One referee not only did not read the paper but criticized something the paper does not do at all! He further suggested an exercise that was already illustrated in 2 figures, 1 table and described in the text! Other referee reports are okay, not very useful. The editor's letter was well-written. However, he referred to incorrect and minor points made by the referees. Overall, bad experience. | 2020 | 07/29/20 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Ken West was the editor | 2014 | 09/07/14 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 18 | N/A | 1 | Referee did not even sent a report after year and a half. The paragraph/comment not constructive. Total waste of time. | 2018 | 05/26/20 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 11 | N/A | 1 | Horrible experience. One referee report after 11 months. Editor highly incompetent | 2015 | 10/18/16 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 12 | N/A | 2 | Took too long | 2019 | 09/23/21 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 1 constructive report; 1 useless report | 2011 | 05/29/14 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. Useful and professional referee report . Overall good experience. | 2018 | 07/03/18 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 3 | Extremely slow and unfair decision | 2016 | 07/17/18 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 15 | N/A | 1 | Amateur night in Dixie | 2016 | 03/06/18 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | 1 really good RR, 1 okay RR | 2015 | 03/28/16 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | very efficient editing service | 2017 | 08/04/17 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Both referees clearly read the paper and discussed potential concerns of the analysis. Editor followed the referees’ suggestion, though with his own view on the paper. Overall efficient process. | 2020 | 02/24/21 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 2011 | 12/22/12 | |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | A bit slow, but kindly acknowledged by the editor. One very good and helpful report. | 2011 | 03/08/13 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Fairly helpful referee report. The referee has read the paper. One referee report only. | 2018 | 01/22/19 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very fast reject and they sent my check back | 2010 | 08/02/13 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 6 weeks for a desk rejection. | 2016 | 11/03/16 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. | 2018 | 09/08/18 |
| Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 01/12/13 | |
| Journal of Multinational Financial Management | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Two referee reports. One very thorough that discussed on every paper point.Good experience | 2016 | 10/28/16 |
| Journal of Pension Economics and Finance | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Bad experience. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason | 2015 | 03/27/15 |
| Journal of Pension Economics and Finance | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | out of scope for this journal, although the most cited paper in this journal also addresses the same research problem | 2020 | 10/05/20 |
| Journal of Policy Analysis and Management | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 3 | Overall, pretty speedy given my submission coincided with end of year grading season and winter holidays in the US. It took 2.5 months from initial submission to receiving three OK reviews. 1 R was for R&R, another for weak R&R, another for reject. Ultimately, Editor rejected as felt it was not general purpose enough. He gave thoughtful comments about how to better target elsewhere. Will submit again in the future! | 2017 | 04/25/18 |
| Journal of Policy Analysis and Management | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 08/23/15 | |
| Journal of Policy Analysis and Management | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Special call. 2 days to get a desk rejection. Reason: topic/results too narrow with respect to broad audience. | 2020 | 10/08/20 |
| Journal of Policy Analysis and Management | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in two days due to relevance | 2014 | 12/12/14 |
| Journal of Policy Modeling | Pending | 6 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 09/19/15 | |
| Journal of Policy Modeling | Pending | 2 | 12 | 0 | R&R in two months. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year. | 2012 | 06/21/14 |
| Journal of Policy Modeling | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | They changed their system recently and the new system indicated that my paper had not been submitted so I waited 5 months for nothing. I pulled the paper and send it elsewhere. | 2021 | 08/30/21 |
| Journal of Policy Modeling | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 17 months and counting... | 2014 | 11/28/15 |
| Journal of Policy Modeling | Pending | 26 | 12 | 0 | R&R, took forever, reports mentioned but not provided, not responsive to emails | 2016 | 03/15/21 |
| Journal of Policy Modeling | Accepted | 12 | 3 | 0 | A very very slow journal. Old fashined. We saw no referee report and only had to deal with editor comments/suggestions. Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it | 2014 | 11/19/20 |
| Journal of Policy Modeling | Accepted | 10 | 11 | 0 | The editor talked about 4 ref reports. We saw none. Will never try it again. | 2012 | 05/08/15 |
| Journal of Policy Modeling | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 4 | Very good journal, with reactive editorial assistant (Sabah Cavalo), and very good and constructive comments. | 2015 | 12/14/15 |
| Journal of Policy Modeling | Accepted | 18 | 3 | 0 | Mentioned but did not provide reports, just asked for a more policy oriented conclusion, unresponsive to emails. Don't submit here. | 2014 | 03/15/21 |
| Journal of Policy Modeling | Accepted | 12 | 12 | 0 | It took 18 months after first revision. Worst experience | 2012 | 05/07/15 |
| Journal of Policy Modeling | Ref Reject | 12 | N/A | 4 | Worse experience ever. The editor rejected after 12 months mentioning 4 referee reports. We asked to see the reports but the editor did not send them. | 2016 | 11/23/17 |
| Journal of Policy Reform | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | Actually Journal of Economic Policy Reform. Good experience, good editor, great referees that really put me through my paces but helped deliver a better paper. | 2016 | 03/23/17 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Pending | 20 | N/A | 0 | Repeated enquiries ("hey, it´s been a year now") have been followed by profuse apologies. Currently 20 months of waiting after first submission. No reply yet. But we are still hopeful. | 2011 | 01/06/13 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Pending | 3 | N/A | 5 | Very good reports and editor was clear about what were most important points to improve in the revision. | 2016 | 03/03/17 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Pending | 3 | N/A | 5 | Very good reports and editor was clear about what were most important points to improve in the revision. | 2016 | 03/03/17 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | no longer a serious all purpose journal imho; "desk reject" after 6 mos on the basis of style in the abstract | 2009 | 01/12/13 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded | 2016 | 06/02/18 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end | 2013 | 05/28/14 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 16 | N/A | 0 | Terrible experience. The referees and the editor took ridic | 2017 | 11/30/18 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 13 | N/A | 3 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | Editor: Heckman; high quality reports, two of the reports were helpful and constructive | 2014 | 12/05/14 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 4 | 2013 | 12/06/13 | |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Three reports, all of high quality, within 2 months. Very constructive and useful for revisions. They took the paper seriously. | 2014 | 07/17/14 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | After 6 months I got three good reports. One positive (R&R) and other two had valid concerns I could have clarified better ex-ante. | 2017 | 01/10/18 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 18 | N/A | 2 | One of the referee reports was of alarmingly low quality. | 2010 | 01/07/13 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | 9 month for two reports. Reports were ok but most of the time was waiting for editor to pull his finger out. | 2019 | 05/12/21 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 0 | Two very good reports, one probably written by the editor. Apart from long waiting time (editor part of the old guard at JPE), positive experience. | 2021 | 12/11/21 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2015 | 02/28/18 | |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Heckman handled paper. Faster than I expected given horror stories i have heard here and elsewhere, and with good comments from refs and editor. | 2013 | 05/31/13 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 0 | 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(I post one row which has the wrong info on journal name, should be JPE rather than QJE) | 2019 | 12/02/19 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Friendly email from editor, interesting reports from referees. Third referee was slow and did not provide public report (he caused the delay). Editor was Mogde. | 2019 | 08/01/19 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Seemed a decent process to me | 2009 | 01/29/13 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 11 | N/A | 2 | Very slow process. | 2015 | 11/17/16 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper | 2017 | 06/02/18 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Ref Reject | 16 | N/A | 0 | Terrible experience. | 2017 | 11/30/18 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | 4 months until desk reject. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. | 2015 | 01/08/16 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | 3 months for a desk rejection - no need to comment... | 2012 | 01/07/13 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 1 month + 10 days for desk rejection. One paragraph with comments. | 2019 | 02/21/19 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Two months for desk reject -- no comments given. | 2019 | 01/18/20 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | No comments at all from editor other than generic stuff. Bit disappointing given the high fee. | 2020 | 02/03/21 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 11/01/13 | |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Report from the Editor. Very helpful comments. | 2016 | 11/23/16 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 1 month desk reject. Encouraging words from editor, good experience | 2020 | 01/28/21 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Horrible experience. Desk rejected in 6 days with no explanation. Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud. One ref suggested I send it to JPE before trying places like EJ or ReStat. Emailed the editor at JPE for a brief explanation of why the paper was desk rejected so that I could improve it. No response. Given all that has happened with JPE in recent years, don't think I will waste my time and money with them again. | 2022 | 02/16/22 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Despite perceptions they do desk reject. Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. Told not a fit. | 2013 | 10/23/13 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected thoughtelessly with curious comment paper read more like a book | 2016 | 02/07/17 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 8 | N/A | 0 | 8 month desk reject with no reports--JPE is dead to me | 2014 | 02/16/15 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk rejected in a bit over a week, not clear who handled the paper | 2020 | 01/11/22 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2010 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 8 | N/A | 0 | 8 months desk rejection! | 2015 | 08/07/16 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected thoughtelessly with curious comment paper read more like a book | 2016 | 02/07/17 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject within two weeks. Encouraging and polite comments from editor. Not enough of a contribution for JPE, suggested AEJs. | 2016 | 10/12/16 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 07/08/17 | |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2 weeks for desk reject. Form letter. For the steep fee would have been appropriate if editor had written a few sentences about why they rejected. | 2019 | 12/27/19 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2016 submission. 7 days | 2015 | 04/19/16 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor | 2015 | 04/20/16 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 7 days for desk reject. Form letter. For the fee would have been nice if the Editor had written a paragraph about why they rejected. | 2019 | 06/06/19 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in a week. Positive comments from the editor. He suggests AER Insights and top field journals. | 2021 | 05/07/21 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in 7 days. Editor clearly read the paper, sent a long email telling me how much he liked it but that it would likely run into trouble with referees. He had nothing but praise for it and offered good suggestions. Overall a very nice experience. | 2016 | 10/21/16 |
| Journal of Political Economy | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | with a report written by the editor | 2016 | 12/09/17 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Pending | 4 | N/A | 2 | Good reports | 2019 | 11/27/19 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Good experience. Two useful ref reports in the first round. A second round of minor revision was requested. Editor is a little slow. Took altogether 8 months to acceptance. | 2015 | 12/17/15 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 3 | Smooth process. | 2015 | 01/16/16 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4.5 months to get the 1st-round comments, 2.5 months for 2nd round. Very useful comments. Nice experience. | 2019 | 04/14/20 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | So-so experience. Editor said there are two reports but I only received one. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. However, the quality of the report is very high and it helps improve the paper a lot. Generally not 5-star experience but worth submitting there if your paper is relevant. | 2016 | 05/11/16 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Two excellent (and supportive) referee reports. Editor reject due to relevance | 2013 | 01/18/14 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Three reports, two reports are with doable suggestions, one is low-quality. The editor rejects the paper and I think it is fair, but I do see that the paper can be improved based on these reports. | 2017 | 01/18/18 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Generic desk reject after one day by Zimmermann. | 2021 | 05/06/21 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected within 2 days. Editor was polite. No comments about the paper itself. | 2018 | 03/21/18 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. quick process but the editor provided no information and was impolite | 2019 | 08/30/19 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | no comments | 2021 | 03/15/21 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Editorial board apparently liked the paper, but found it not sufficiently related to population economics. 1.5 weeks overall | 2019 | 07/25/19 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 01/17/17 | |
| Journal of Population Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics | 2015 | 11/01/15 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | desk reject without specific comments | 2021 | 07/14/21 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor desk-rejected in two hours | 2021 | 07/13/21 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 10 days. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided | 2021 | 04/29/21 |
| Journal of Population Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2009 | 01/07/13 | |
| Journal of Population Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. quick process but the editor provided no information and was impolite | 2019 | 08/30/19 |
| Journal of Post Keynesian Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Nice communication with the Editor, but the referre report was terse with only one and brief idea. | 2013 | 01/29/14 |
| Journal of Post Keynesian Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | Incredibly insulting rejection that made it clear the referee had not read past the first 2 pages of the paper. Due to a "typographical error" in sending me an email, I had to wait an extra month (and after I emailed asking for a status update) to learn of the rejection - wasting time I could have spent submitting it to another journal. | 2013 | 10/05/13 |
| Journal of Productivity Analysis | Pending | 6 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 02/15/13 | |
| Journal of Productivity Analysis | Accepted | 8 | 8 | 2 | Two reports -- one good (mostly cosmetic changes), one very short. Process was too long given that only minor changes were required on R&R. | 2014 | 10/22/15 |
| Journal of Productivity Analysis | Accepted | 4 | 5 | 3 | 20 months to acceptance since first submission | 2020 | 10/28/21 |
| Journal of Productivity Analysis | Accepted | 8 | 6 | 2 | 2013 | 06/14/15 | |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Submitted in April, still waiting | 2012 | 01/08/13 |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Pending | 12 | 12 | 0 | Referees are not responsive | 2017 | 12/07/18 |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 02/10/13 | |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Accepted | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2006 | 08/02/13 | |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Accepted | 7 | 7 | 2 | Referees asked for useless extensions and took more than six months in each round. | 2014 | 12/25/15 |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Overall positive experience. One high quality report. One very low quality and unfriendly report. | 2013 | 10/31/15 |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | Very late and vague one page referee report, rejection based on perceived bad fit with journal. Was not worth waiting that long (this is an understatement...) | 2015 | 12/30/15 |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | Editor was kindly respond my email after 6 months, informed me that referees did not respond even after emailing them. At the end, I got two reports; one helpful, the other garbage. | 2016 | 03/07/17 |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 11 | N/A | 0 | Terrible experience overall. | 2012 | 04/27/14 |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | 1 good referee, 1 weird referee | 2012 | 07/15/13 |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | 2018 | 02/04/19 | |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Harsh critical comments from the editor, a useful report from the referee. | 2021 | 08/30/21 |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 1 | Terrible experience. | 2014 | 03/21/15 |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Paid $100 to read "that the Journal of Public Economics can only accept about 10 percent of the submissions for publication." | 2015 | 08/16/15 |
| Journal of Public Economic Theory | Desk Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | 5 months for a desk reject! I don't know what to add. | 2014 | 09/28/14 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Pending | 2 | N/A | 0 | Fast response. Excellent referee reports and detailed feedback from the editor on what to focus on and what to ignore. My new favorite journal | 2017 | 02/23/18 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 11/08/16 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Pending | 2 | N/A | 3 | 2 good reports, one blah | 2014 | 09/15/15 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Accepted | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2013 | 11/18/14 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Accepted | 8 | 2 | 2 | good reports, but so slow. | 2016 | 12/27/17 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2013 | 11/10/13 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 2 | Two thoughtful reports | 2012 | 05/29/18 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | Very clear instructions from editor for revision | 2017 | 06/02/18 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Very Detailed construtive reports. Short turn around time. | 2014 | 03/30/15 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | Very good experience. | 2019 | 03/10/20 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Good referee reports. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. He saw we addressed the points, and accepted the paper himself without going back to reviewers although comments were substantial. | 2012 | 11/28/13 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | One useful report, one useless | 2013 | 04/09/14 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | constructive reports, editor had read the paper and gave additional comments | 2018 | 09/22/18 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | One bad/objectively false report, one useful report | 2011 | 04/04/13 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 01/03/13 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | Bad experience. Very long time for first response. Reports only partly helpful. | 2016 | 10/25/16 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | 7 | 2 | It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. | 2012 | 06/16/13 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Both referee reports of decent quality. | 2013 | 02/13/14 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 3 | Excellent experience. Total turn around time was about 40 days. 3 detailed reports, and a summary from Hendren explaining the rejection. Good overall experience. | 2018 | 07/15/18 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Ref. reject after 3 months. Detailed comments. Good experience, worth the 100$ :) | 2020 | 06/09/20 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Good referee reports about key aspects of the research question framing and relevance. Helpful for resubmission somewhere else. | 2020 | 04/14/20 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 7 weeks. 1 good report and 1 not so good. | 2019 | 03/23/19 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2 referees seemed positive about the paper. Editor rejected. | 2016 | 07/11/16 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 1 positive and 1 negative report - Editor rejected | 2015 | 01/08/16 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Decent reports, rejecting for fair reasons. Pretty well run, can't complain. | 2015 | 07/23/15 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". | 2013 | 09/20/13 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 01/03/13 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | One good referee report, one referee who had no idea. Editor also gave comments. All in all it was a fair rejection and a good experience overall. | 2015 | 04/08/16 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 3 | 1 reviewer R&R, two reject. Editor very sympathetic, but rejected. Quality suggestions from all three reports & editor. | 2020 | 05/29/20 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Very low quality reports! | 2017 | 06/15/17 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | quick process, helpful reports and editor comments | 2018 | 09/28/19 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Kind reject from the editor after a week, providing reasons why the paper was rejected | 2021 | 08/18/21 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2009 | 01/04/13 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Two OK reports. | 2013 | 07/31/13 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 6 months to receive 2 reports. 1 was very low quality -- couple of bullet points that made clear reviewer had not read paper | 2016 | 05/14/17 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | Good editor, reports ok | 2012 | 01/31/13 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 01/07/16 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Special fast-track call. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. The editor did put more weight on the negative one. | 2020 | 10/08/20 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Quick with two decent reports. Fair process overall. | 2020 | 05/12/21 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | bad experience... close call, got rejected... | 2013 | 06/12/13 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Change of editor in charge during the process. | 2021 | 11/18/21 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2015 | 04/19/16 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 01/29/13 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/22/12 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Two entirely reasonable reports. Both have suggestions (one extensive, one less so). | 2014 | 06/16/14 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 01/01/13 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Monica Singhal handled the submission within a bit less than 2 months, and takes time to give a detailed opinion on the paper, impresive! 1 super helpull report, 1 useless. Overall very good experience | 2018 | 12/12/18 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Mostly decent reports raising fair points, OK experience | 2016 | 05/08/17 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Completely useless reports from referees/editor not know the methodology involved. Paper eventually got accepted at higher ranked journal (!). | 2011 | 07/31/14 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 09/11/13 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Good reports, good time to decision | 2015 | 12/13/15 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | One garbage report, one useful | 2016 | 05/07/17 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Two reports negative and one positive, editor chooses to reject. | 2014 | 06/03/14 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Received 3 high-quality referee reports within 4 months. Editorial process was efficient and fair. | 2020 | 02/21/22 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | No negative comments from referees on the substance, but one referee just didn't like it. Form letter from the editor. | 2019 | 05/24/19 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Polite, even quite positive reports. Nothing that could not be fixed in 2 days, still reject. Seems like being rejected in virtue of the magnificence of the journal | 2014 | 12/01/14 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Kind, thoughtful, and brief editor letter. 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. Overall positive experience. | 2018 | 02/18/21 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | One report was low quality the other was so-so. Not a particularly good experience | 2014 | 04/29/15 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Standard generic letter from the editor | 2016 | 02/03/17 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2010 | 01/09/13 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very polite desk rejection. Suggested some other journals. | 2017 | 11/15/17 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk rejection in 2 weeks. other outlets are suggested. | 2016 | 05/05/16 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 09/30/14 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2010 | 04/15/13 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2010 | 12/20/12 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 06/03/13 | |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick desk rejection after 2 weeks. | 2021 | 09/09/21 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very helpful and polite rejection | 2013 | 02/13/13 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | recommend to send to some other theory journals but those theory journals have said I should send to this journal. | 2015 | 10/12/15 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection in 3 days. The editor was fair and provided reasons why the paper was rejected. | 2021 | 03/03/21 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor made some quick comments and recommended 3 journals a tier below. | 2017 | 01/16/19 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast and fair desk reject | 2019 | 02/03/20 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very good experience; desk reject with highly valuable and fair comments by the co-editor within 10 days | 2018 | 12/04/18 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection in 3 days. The editor was fair and provided reasons why the paper was rejected. | 2021 | 03/03/21 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 10 days. Suggested a top field journal! did not refund the submission fee. | 2016 | 06/02/16 |
| Journal of Public Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | fast | 2013 | 01/08/14 |
| Journal of Public Policy | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | the comment above was for another journals. Mod's pls delete it. | 2014 | 09/12/14 |
| Journal of Public Policy | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | submitted half a year ago. editorial team do not respond to email. had to withdraw | 2014 | 09/12/14 |
| Journal of Public Policy and Marketing | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2020 | 05/07/20 | |
| Journal of Public Policy and Marketing | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 4 | Very helpful, constructive, blunt, and encouraging comments from the editors and reviewers | 2020 | 06/23/20 |
| Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports | 2016 | 07/21/17 |
| Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 1 | Smooth process and manageable referee report. | 2019 | 04/15/20 |
| Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Terrible report. Never submit to this journal again. | 2014 | 04/02/15 |
| Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | There is only one report called review number 2! The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. Editor rejected based on that. Complete waste of time!! | 2014 | 04/02/15 |
| Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk reject in 2 weeks | 2016 | 10/13/16 |
| Journal of Real Estate Research | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2011 | 12/23/12 | |
| Journal of Real Estate Research | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 4 | Two referee reports were really good. Pleasantly surprised by the quality of referee report. | 2012 | 04/22/14 |
| Journal of Regional Science | Pending | 4 | 4 | 2 | Very slow, 4 months waiting of the revise and resubmit, it's now two months since I submitted in and no word. If you need a fast turnaround, this is not the journal for you! | 2018 | 04/19/19 |
| Journal of Regional Science | Accepted | 3 | 5 | 3 | Editor (Partridge) was very helpful and was de facto a 4th referee. | 2015 | 05/19/17 |
| Journal of Regional Science | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Very slow. I sent an email after 5 months of submission and another after 6 months. It took 7 months until the JORS provided two referee reports of poor quality (one refere suggested to replace GMM with FE regression because it is impossible to solve endogeneity completely). this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. BTW if one of the referee goes for RR, I would have to wait for a third referee report (lucky me?). | 2019 | 04/17/20 |
| Journal of Regional Science | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | it took 2 months to receive desk reject. | 2019 | 02/18/20 |
| Journal of Regional Science | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 6 weeks to get desk rejected for not being of general interest. No indication that the co-editor read the paper. | 2019 | 09/03/19 |
| Journal of Regional Science | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | A nice formated letter saying that the topic was not interesting enough for the audience of the Journal. | 2018 | 03/12/18 |
| Journal of Regulatory Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2010 | 08/02/13 | |
| Journal of Regulatory Economics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | Sent email to the corresponding editor after 6 months review, but no response. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. Awful experience. | 2021 | 10/15/21 |
| Journal of Regulatory Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Not scope of the journal | 2018 | 08/03/18 |
| Journal of Regulatory Economics | Desk Reject | 14 | N/A | 0 | The worst experience I ever had in over 20 years. When we inquired after 6 month, we were told to be patient. After 14 month a desk rejection arrived. Nothing in the email suggested that anyone had actually read the paper. So there is zero feedback. If you want a fair treatment - stay away from this journal. | 2017 | 06/07/18 |
| Journal of Regulatory Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Not scope of the journal | 2018 | 08/03/18 |
| Journal of Risk and Insurance | Pending | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2016 | 09/11/16 | |
| Journal of Risk and Insurance | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Good reviews, excellent process. | 2013 | 08/20/18 |
| Journal of Risk and Insurance | Accepted | 10 | 3 | 2 | long process. detailed comments | 2016 | 10/15/18 |
| Journal of Risk and Insurance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Fair and quick process. Two competent reviewers, one slightly hostile, one friendly. Fair editor. | 2016 | 08/20/18 |
| Journal of Risk and Uncertainty | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 12/27/12 | |
| Journal of Risk and Uncertainty | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 01/21/13 | |
| Journal of Risk and Uncertainty | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | I was politely told that I should have cited more JRU papers. The paper was a very good fit though. | 2014 | 10/01/14 |
| Journal of Risk and Uncertainty | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | EM suggested transfer to a different journal (which desk rejected after 2 hours) | 2021 | 07/13/21 |
| Journal of Risk and Uncertainty | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Brief, ignorant, editor's letter. After 3 weeks this would have been acceptable. | 2014 | 09/02/14 |
| Journal of Socio-Economics | Accepted | 3 | 4 | 2 | Very happy with the editorial process. With referees in 15 days of submission. First round of referee reports obtained in another 2 months. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Revisions done in another two months and sent back to referees. Another 2 months and a second round of very minor revisions. Overall, paper first sent in November and accepted in next August! | 2018 | 04/12/21 |
| Journal of Socio-Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Now Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. Good reports. Paper drastically improved through process. Nice editor. | 2017 | 10/23/18 |
| Journal of Sports Economics | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | Great experience. 2 reports and 2 rounds. Only had to face one reviewer in the second round. Very efficient. | 2015 | 06/23/15 |
| Journal of Sports Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected within a few hours - unclear that associate editor had read the paper carefully, rather than just the limited 100 word abstract, since comments repeated points made within the paper. Focus of decision appeared to be on the institutional context of the paper rather than considering the economics | 2019 | 06/26/19 |
| Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy | Desk Reject | 7 | N/A | 0 | After careful consideration, the JAPE editorial team considers the paper is largely a statistics exercise. On this basis the paper is unsuitable for JAPE and the decision is to reject the paper. | 2014 | 05/02/15 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 08/09/15 | |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2019 | 08/14/19 | |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 4 | Editor was Imran Rasul, extremely professional and competent. Referee reports were of high quality. Very satisfied with the experience | 2018 | 08/27/19 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 4 | Dirk is an excellent editor. | 2016 | 04/05/19 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 3 | Awesome experience. Very helpful comments and suggestions from three reviewers and editor (Angeletos). | 2013 | 11/20/14 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 3 | very good reports | 2018 | 09/05/20 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Took 6 months for first reply (ref reject); 1 referee critical but fair, the other one very critical but didn't read the paper carefully. Editor was fair, his decision was understandble, but 6 months is clearly too long. | 2020 | 12/21/21 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Poor comments, one paragraph each asking for minor changes but rejected. | 2018 | 11/10/18 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 6 weeks. 2 strong reports with valid empirical critiques, 1 less so. | 2014 | 04/18/14 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2014 | 04/25/14 | |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Bad Experience. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. One good report, one completely useless with only superficial, general remarks. And that after five months... | 2016 | 06/23/16 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 4 | 2021 | 01/24/22 | |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Didn't really get a clear sense from the negative reports why they rejected. | 2018 | 12/18/18 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 2019 | 09/10/19 | |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Very quick response. One report was very useful. The editor also read the paper and gave very good comments and suggestions. Great experience in general! | 2015 | 06/30/15 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | OK reports, not very deep. | 2014 | 05/21/14 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Quick response. Very helpful referee reports. | 2015 | 06/02/15 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very quick. Very good editor recommending a field journal. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. | 2013 | 10/06/13 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 2.5 months review. good referee reports (1 yes, 2 no). fair and efficient process | 2016 | 04/17/17 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Three mediocre reports. Slightly disappointing. | 2021 | 02/07/22 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. | 2011 | 03/08/13 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Extremely fast and with 2 high quality RRs. | 2014 | 03/03/15 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very fair. 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. Very good experience. | 2016 | 04/05/17 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 14 days for a desk rejection. Editor does not made any comment, probably has not read the paper at all. | 2019 | 05/28/19 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in 1 week. Editor read the paper and outlined clear (and fair) reasons for rejection. Comments were useful and recommended a tier of journal to try next. | 2016 | 11/29/16 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 06/03/13 | |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | within 2 days, nice mail by the editor | 2013 | 12/20/13 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected the next day. Editor wrote half a page and was polite. Said the contribution was too small, which I accept. I knew I shot too high. | 2018 | 03/14/18 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in 1 week. Editor read the paper and outlined clear and fair reasons for rejection. Recommended a more specialized journal to try next | 2018 | 01/23/18 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 07/28/13 | |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick rejection (Canova, 5 days), professional, very acceptable decision. Also suggested 3 very good field Journal. | 2013 | 08/16/13 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 3 pages of helpful comments by the editor, suggested very good field journals instead | 2016 | 09/22/16 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 12/31/12 | |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick desk rejection (1 week) | 2013 | 05/31/13 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject without a single comment | 2015 | 02/04/15 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk rejected within a week | 2021 | 01/11/22 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. | 2019 | 01/08/19 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick (2 weeks) desk reject | 2011 | 04/04/13 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2 days from submission to desk rejection. Editor: "Far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal" | 2020 | 10/08/20 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Three weeks for a desk reject. Some reasons given. | 2013 | 01/22/14 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection in one day by Giovanni Perri. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. Comments are constructive. Overall good experience. | 2020 | 03/09/20 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Generic desk reject within 2 weeks. Not general interest | 2018 | 12/28/18 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Form letter. Reason given: "not general enough." Big fat load of help. | 2016 | 09/28/16 |
| Journal of the European Economic Association | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | No feedback at all. Editor probably didn't go beyond the abstract | 2015 | 05/06/16 |
| Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) | Pending | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2015 | 11/23/15 | |
| Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Accepted after two rounds of revisions. The referee reports were fairly good. Quick turnaround time for the first R&R, but very slow for the last round. | 2015 | 08/02/18 |
| Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | superficial comment. main message was that paper is a poor fit. plus for a quick turnaround. | 2016 | 01/30/17 |
| Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | One referee super positive, the other negative and with superficial and inappropriate arguments, at some points even incorrect. A shame the editor sided with the second. Complete waste of time.. | 2018 | 01/27/19 |
| Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Reports not very helpful, paper not in journal scope. Desk reject would have been more efficient | 2021 | 12/06/21 |
| Journal of Time Series Analysis | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 3 | They editors are very efficient. Nice experience | 2018 | 11/12/18 |
| Journal of Transport Economics and Policy | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 06/15/16 | |
| Journal of Transport Economics and Policy | Accepted | 7 | 12 | 1 | Extremely slow... | 2015 | 01/06/18 |
| Journal of Transport Economics and Policy | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 1 | Good and efficient process | 2014 | 06/18/15 |
| Journal of Transport Economics and Policy | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | 2008 | 12/21/12 | |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Accepted | 0 | N/A | 0 | I am asked to send to another journal because the paper is not a good fit | 2014 | 06/19/14 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | the editor is very nice, professional and efficient | 2010 | 01/19/13 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Accepted | 6 | 4 | 2 | Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. Editor also gave very detailed description of the necessary changes. Also gave a lengthy extension. Great experience! | 2015 | 11/15/17 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | good reports, fast journal | 2011 | 01/01/13 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Nitpicky reviews. | 2014 | 02/23/15 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | The referee reports were serious and offered some good suggestions, although one of the referees appeared not to understand the theoretical model used in the paper. Neither felt that the paper was a good fit for an urban journal. | 2013 | 08/29/13 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2021 | 01/11/22 | |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Two weak reports. Editor suggests trying different journal. | 2021 | 07/06/21 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Passed the desk (Turner) in ten days. One reviewer is helpful, another needs to retake econometrics course. Overall, not bad experience. | 2017 | 03/15/18 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | reports show referees were serious. Sadly, no mention of why paper was rejected (only minor issues raised). Comments were helpful. | 2011 | 01/15/13 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Good comments from referee and editor after five months | 2016 | 02/20/17 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 2 | Poor quality reports. The editor and AEs should be immediately replaced. Complete waste of time and money. | 2021 | 01/05/22 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Reports were not fair but at least fast response. | 2014 | 10/23/14 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Good reports. Good editor. Good experience | 2021 | 01/04/22 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | 2 | 2 | Both refs postive but think the topic is not a good fit for the journal. Good experience, strong feedback. | 2019 | 05/08/20 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Great experience. Both referees caught the major issue in the paper and offered great suggestions for moving forward. | 2018 | 09/04/19 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | You won't get in unless you are in the 'cabal'. This particular group controlling urban economics now will not let any differing view go through AER and JUE. It is probably not surprising that the editor simply failed to understand the theoretical model and the referees had zero understanding of the empirics. It is sad that they keep publishing junk but the good papers keep getting rejected. This paper has just been accepted in a top transportation journal now. | 2021 | 12/29/21 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 2 | Referees on the fence, rejection because editor does not like topic | 2013 | 06/06/14 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 06/13/14 | |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 12/16/13 | |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | First referee was very positive and had clarifying questions, second referee made numerous silly points with obvious flaws. Editor followed the second report. Suggested to submit to RSUE. | 2021 | 08/30/21 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Fast response time. Editor was great (helpful, insightful, truthful). Two referee reports: 1 seemed to miss basics of the paper and didn't provide useful insight/comments and the other was exhaustive, insightful, and useful moving forward. Reason for rejection was editor thought paper belonged in `less selective' journal. | 2013 | 07/18/13 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. The other referee was serious however. | 2012 | 12/24/12 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor desk rejected in 24 hours. | 2011 | 01/25/13 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Bad experience. After ref rejection at an AEJ submitted here we followed editors suggestion and submitted to JUE. Got a slow desk rejection from LB telling me/us to cite someone I cited in the intro. Bad experience. | 2018 | 04/04/20 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | rejected by editor, saying should submit to other similar journal | 2013 | 07/07/13 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | recommend other journal | 2013 | 01/28/14 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Waste of $100. Editor is a insecure joke. | 2019 | 04/05/19 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Efficient process. The model is not in AE's taste. AE recommended other journals | 2022 | 03/21/22 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Efficient process. The model is not in AE's taste. AE recommended other journals | 2022 | 03/21/22 |
| Journal of Urban Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Efficient process. The model is not in AE's taste. AE recommended other journals | 2022 | 03/21/22 |
| Kyklos | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 3 | Fast editors. Good comments. Probably the fastest journal I've had experience with. | 2015 | 02/23/16 |
| Kyklos | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | Very efficiently run journal. Referee report was reasonable and improved the manuscript. | 2018 | 08/03/21 |
| Kyklos | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 4 weeks for first response. Rejected based on 1 helpful referee report. Overall very good experience. | 2016 | 05/26/16 |
| Kyklos | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2014 | 10/06/16 | |
| Kyklos | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| Kyklos | Ref Reject | 2 | 2 | 2 | Fast editors. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Editor mentioned additional points and suggested a field journal as an alternative. | 2016 | 02/19/17 |
| Kyklos | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Fast and fair. One short and one longer report. | 2017 | 06/08/17 |
| Kyklos | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Editor referred to a report by a reviewer received by phone | 2011 | 01/07/13 |
| Kyklos | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Desk/ref rejected. They said they could not find reviewers. Gave a quick explanation and said they did a thorough read of the paper. Letters from the Editor was nice. Might submit again, a little disappointed that they didn't try to get it reviewed. | 2017 | 09/03/17 |
| Kyklos | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Editors reject the paper. The decision is motivated by acceptable reasons and suggest potential alternative journals. | 2013 | 01/17/14 |
| Kyklos | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | Desk reject within a 10 day but editor provided a short 'referee' report mentioning five issues. Fair and quick process. | 2016 | 10/25/16 |
| Kyklos | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. Desk reject took four days. Fast and fair. | 2017 | 09/04/17 |
| Kyklos | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after 3 days. Editor gave a two sentence summary the paper, mentioned two additional recent articles from their journal that might be useful, and suggested an alternative journal. The reason for rejection was that my paper was too specific for their readers. | 2018 | 03/25/18 |
| Labour Economics | Pending | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2.5 months to get a RR. Very useful comments from referees. Editor offers insightful suggestions as well. | 2020 | 05/26/20 |
| Labour Economics | Accepted | 6 | 8 | 2 | Editor Ian Walker gave us a fantastic referee report. The two anonymous referees were surely competent even though they did not go in depth as the editor did. 1 R&R round. Re-submission took a week to be finally be accepted. Very good experience. | 2012 | 09/21/13 |
| Labour Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Good process. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. Quick acceptance after revision. | 2016 | 01/02/17 |
| Labour Economics | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2020 | 05/25/20 | |
| Labour Economics | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2020 | 05/25/20 | |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | one referee suggested revision, one rejection, editor followed the rejection; good reports, suggestions improved the paper | 2017 | 04/06/18 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Two revisions but rejected by editor, fast and fair comments | 2017 | 12/12/17 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | One accept with min comments, one said ok but many points/revisions, one reject, editor said too large a revision without guarantee for accept | 2012 | 03/07/13 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 1 report recommended to publish, 1 pointed out minor points | 2015 | 11/01/15 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Rejected, but editor and referees were fair. | 2018 | 05/31/18 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Reviewers likely not in my area; rather superficial comments. Quick-ish, 10 weeks. | 2018 | 02/18/19 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Rejected, but editor and referees were fair. | 2018 | 05/31/18 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Submitted to conference edition. Referee comments generally useful and positive, but guest editor made desicsion to reject given preferences - fair enough really | 2017 | 06/16/19 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Ref rejected, 1 decent report (2 pages) and 1 pretty bad report (3 lines) | 2013 | 01/14/14 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 01/11/13 | |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | one positive, one negative report. a positive experience, all in all. | 2012 | 06/04/13 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2 decent reports. Way too slow though. My paper was not complicated and could have been rejected in 2-3 months easily. | 2014 | 03/30/15 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very good referee reports. Also the editor gave us good comments. | 2010 | 04/16/13 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Co-editor and one referee attacked the paper for something that the paper already explicitly adresses. Poor. | 2019 | 02/10/20 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | good, helpful referee reports | 2017 | 08/25/17 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | A very similar paper came out a month after our paper got rejected, new paper's authors are closely tied to this journal. | 2012 | 12/20/12 |
| Labour Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 2 | Helpful comments from referees and relatively fast. | 2015 | 09/22/15 |
| Labour Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 week for desk reject | 2015 | 08/19/15 |
| Labour Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast response within one week. Editor recommended to submit to other journals. 100 USD for such VALUABLE suggestion. | 2015 | 04/21/16 |
| Labour Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Invited to submit for a special conference issue and then the editor desk rejected. The reason given was something along the lines of well we can't read everything. Complete garbage. | 2015 | 09/23/15 |
| Labour Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2 months for desk rejection. Urghh. | 2014 | 09/29/14 |
| Labour Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor's comments were very useful, like a good referee report. | 2019 | 01/21/20 |
| Labour Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Two weeks for a desk rejection. Garbage. Editor didn't read the paper. | 2016 | 07/29/16 |
| Labour Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | paper is bad and i feel bad | 2016 | 11/02/16 |
| Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations | Accepted | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2013 | 03/06/18 | |
| Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Efficient process. | 2013 | 08/07/15 |
| Land Economics | Accepted | 3 | N/A | 2 | Second round took 30 minutes, from submission to acceptance. Then took about 14 months to be come out in print. | 2010 | 12/21/12 |
| Land Economics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | two reports, comments not always very clear on what was wanted but still helpful. I will submit again | 2013 | 03/13/15 |
| Land Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | 4 weeks to first response. | 2015 | 05/05/16 |
| Land Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Strange desk reject by editor, claiming methods weren't relevant to policy. This journal has published MANY papers using these methods and policy makers regularly fund these methods. Editor is losing it. | 2015 | 04/08/16 |
| Macroeconomic Dynamics (Washington) | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | One of my best experiences. Referee reports are interesting and constructive. They clearly help the author to improve their paper instead of rejecting it without trying to extract the best. Highly recommended. | 2014 | 06/13/15 |
| Macroeconomic Dynamics (Washington) | Accepted | 8 | 3 | 2 | 2010 | 12/22/12 | |
| Macroeconomic Dynamics (Washington) | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | 2 OK reports. At least they're quick | 2012 | 03/14/13 |
| Macroeconomic Dynamics (Washington) | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | The referee asked for revision but Barnett or an AE rejected after I emailed them after 6 months. Currently under R&R at a journal with the same ranking. Considered waste of time here. | 2017 | 09/26/18 |
| Macroeconomic Dynamics (Washington) | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | not enough contribution | 2019 | 02/18/20 |
| Macroeconomic Dynamics (Washington) | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Was desk rejected in one day. At least it was fast I guess. | 2016 | 01/24/18 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Accepted | 6 | 4 | 2 | Very good referee and associate editor report | 2012 | 09/25/13 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Accepted | 6 | 7 | 1 | Two rounds of R&R. One referee with very helpful reports. | 2014 | 11/29/15 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Accepted | 12 | 7 | 0 | Unreasonably slow. | 2012 | 02/25/15 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 2 | A very pleasant experience after 5 rounds of really bad reviews. William A. Barnett is a very professional editor and reviews were helpful. The paper was accepted after I incorporated all suggestions in R&R. Will definitely send again. | 2010 | 07/16/15 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | Fantastic experience (accepted first round) | 2016 | 06/12/17 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 0 | Directly accepted within one month. Very fast | 2018 | 03/27/18 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. Very clear about what was needed for revision and the 2nd round was only minor comments. Very good experience overall. | 2018 | 12/04/19 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. Very clear about what was needed for revision and the 2nd round was only minor comments. Very good experience overall. | 2015 | 01/16/16 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Accepted | 7 | 3 | 2 | Two rounds of R&R. One referee report excellent. Second report little use. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful. | 2011 | 01/18/14 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Ref Reject | 4 | 2 | 2 | Bad reports (full of mistakes, pointed out to AE but didn't work) | 2011 | 01/04/13 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Referee reports not particularly useful | 2013 | 01/14/14 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Quite fast luckily. One referee was in favour of a strong R&R, the other recommended rejection on the basis of mathematical error, the AD seconded the latter. Needless to say, the error is not as such, | 2013 | 01/09/14 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 9 days for desk reject, no comments | 2021 | 03/23/21 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 01/17/13 | |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Assigned to an associate editor and got desk reject. Not very fast but good in overall | 2021 | 08/16/21 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | complete waste of time | 2017 | 02/20/18 |
| Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge) | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 20 days | 2014 | 11/20/14 |
| Management Science | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Quick | 2013 | 05/15/13 |
| Management Science | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 3 | Very quick! | 2016 | 05/13/16 |
| Management Science | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Efficient and professional. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and less than two months in the second round. | 2015 | 05/24/16 |
| Management Science | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 3 | Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. Happy with the whole process. | 2016 | 03/01/17 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Great management by editorial board although disappointing result | 2020 | 10/08/20 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Finance section. Barber was AE. | 2011 | 12/28/12 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Fair decision and useful comments! | 2020 | 05/31/20 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | Unbelievably slow given their 30-day referee guideline. One useful report out of three. | 2018 | 12/05/18 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Fast (7 weeks) and fair | 2021 | 04/16/21 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Four lengthy referee reports. | 2019 | 08/27/19 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Too slow. One referee suggested R and R. Other referee rejected (AE and DE supported this). But overall very very slow process. | 2019 | 10/30/19 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Not sufficiently interesting. | 2018 | 12/12/18 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 02/06/13 | |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Professional reports. 2 rejects, 1 R&R. AE followed majority reports without additional insights. | 2020 | 04/12/21 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | very professional; some referees had good points; should have spent more time polishing the paper before submitting | 2018 | 12/06/18 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | One very good referee report out of three. Editor did not add any comments. | 2019 | 10/01/19 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). Letter from the editor not so much informative. | 2016 | 07/29/16 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | A bit slow. Not a good fit for MS | 2019 | 12/23/19 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | Four refereed. Good reports. Editor does not see a path to acceptance so rejection. | 2018 | 05/09/19 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Reject and resubmit although both referees and AE advised revision. DE claims to have too large acceptance rate. Largely fair points. | 2017 | 06/10/17 |
| Management Science | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Good report. | 2012 | 02/08/13 |
| Management Science | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Not a good fit. | 2018 | 05/09/19 |
| Management Science | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Somewhat useful comments from Department Editor. Not so much from the Associate Editor. | 2016 | 10/17/16 |
| Management Science | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Reasonable motivations for desk rejection provided | 2015 | 04/30/15 |
| Management Science | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast desk rejection, poor targeting on my part | 2017 | 09/26/17 |
| Management Science | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | desk reject but with useful feedback from AE | 2017 | 07/10/17 |
| Management Science | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 48 hours. | 2017 | 06/14/17 |
| Management Science | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Not a fit to MS! | 2015 | 01/14/16 |
| Management Science | Desk Reject | 3 | 3 | 4 | Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. | 2016 | 10/06/17 |
| Management Science | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Not a good fit! Although the paper fits to one of their categories. | 2015 | 06/08/15 |
| Management Science | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 8 days to the fair decision: Not a good fit | 2018 | 01/16/19 |
| Management Science | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Contribution too small. AE recommended another journal. Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. KG was DE in finance. | 2018 | 09/13/18 |
| Managerial and Decision Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | One very good set of comments. The other `meh'. Good experience. | 2014 | 07/03/14 |
| Managerial and Decision Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 1 | Smooth process | 2015 | 04/26/16 |
| Managerial and Decision Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | The most idiotic referees I've ever seen. I guess I had the luck of being assigned to two business school types with absolutely no idea of the literature that my model belonged to. One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. Particularly, one of the referees seemed like he didn't read a single word past the intro. This journal still has the word economics in its tile, please stop asking clueless marketing types to referee! | 2015 | 07/11/15 |
| Marketing Science | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Several bizarre comments in reviews. | 2015 | 05/16/16 |
| Marketing Science | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Slow. Was not notified by the decision through email, found the decision in manuscript central during a random check. | 2014 | 07/12/14 |
| Marketing Science | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2014 | 11/07/14 | |
| Marketing Science | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2017 | 12/09/17 | |
| Marketing Science | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 48hr desk rejection with a weird comment from the editor; You did not address related marketing literature! The literature review was complete! | 2015 | 06/02/15 |
| Marketing Science | Desk Reject | 0 | 1 | 0 | Doesn't fit. At least quick. | 2017 | 08/01/17 |
| Mathematical Social Sciences | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2012 | 01/10/13 | |
| Mathematical Social Sciences | Accepted | 7 | 3 | 2 | A bit slow but overall a good experience. One of the referees helped me structure the paper nicely. | 2017 | 05/19/18 |
| Mathematical Social Sciences | Accepted | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2012 | 06/24/13 | |
| Mathematical Social Sciences | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | One few sentence report after 5 month. It seems that the referee did not read the paper just pinpointed assumptions he did not like to reject. Isnt it written that this journal focuses on mathematical reasoning instead of sticking to conventional setup? | 2018 | 02/04/19 |
| Mathematical Social Sciences | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | Waste of time! never submit here again. | 2014 | 05/25/15 |
| Mathematical Social Sciences | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Although my manuscript wa based on stochastic processes, editor rejected it since they were not expert in applied econometrics. Miserable. | 2015 | 07/09/16 |
| National Tax Journal | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 3 | 2017 | 03/19/18 | |
| National Tax Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Submitted a taxation paper that was outside of their comfort zone. Technical issues handled by non-experts. | 2019 | 03/04/20 |
| New York Economic Review | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Quick turnaround, helpful comments, will submit again | 2017 | 02/19/18 |
| New York Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | Desk rejected in less than a week. Sent a specialized financial accounting paper. Rejected for not general interest, brief comments by editor and a "finance scholar". Can't really complain about the speed | 2018 | 04/13/18 |
| North American Journal of Economics and Finance | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Fast process and 2 helpful ref. reports. Overall, it was a good experience. | 2015 | 05/28/16 |
| North American Journal of Economics and Finance | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | extensive and helpful ref. report | 2013 | 03/08/14 |
| Open Economies Review | Pending | 3 | N/A | 2 | Two referee reports, one engaged and constructive, the other written in incredibly poor English that took issue with some phrases I used. Interesting use of a referee's time. | 2014 | 01/16/15 |
| Open Economies Review | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2013 | 10/22/13 | |
| Open Economies Review | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality. | 2014 | 03/27/15 |
| Open Economies Review | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 3 month. Too long | 2011 | 11/08/13 |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Accepted | 6 | 3 | 2 | There was a second round of ref. reports, the reports were all nice an constructive | 2012 | 02/20/13 |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 1 | Good report. Even better input by editor. | 2013 | 08/06/15 |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Accepted | 12 | 7 | 2 | 2010 | 11/01/15 | |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Accepted | 5 | 3 | 2 | Overall good experience, 1 useful report | 2017 | 01/28/19 |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Speedy review | 2020 | 04/10/21 |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Editor wrote report himself. Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. | 2015 | 12/03/15 |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | 1 paragraph of superficial non-descriptive comments from each ref | 2012 | 05/01/13 |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 1 | 2009 | 12/20/12 | |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2016 | 06/16/19 | |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Ref reports of high quality, mention half a dozen suggestions for robustness which perhaps amounted to too much for the editor to let this go to revision. One of those cases where the paper though rejected improved significantly as a result. | 2014 | 10/09/14 |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | High quality reports | 2015 | 12/03/15 |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 12/20/12 | |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | One week to desk reject with no comment at all. Editor was Nielsen. Very disappointing to have no word on a paper that got R&R with minor revisions in a similar ranked journal half a year later | 2020 | 11/26/20 |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 09/17/14 | |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection after three months, editor apologized for delay | 2014 | 10/13/14 |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2018 | 09/18/20 | |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 03/18/14 | |
| Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2 month for a desk rejection | 2013 | 01/14/14 |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk accepted, sent to R&R for less than a month. Waiting for R&R results | 2019 | 09/12/19 |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Pending | 5 | N/A | 2 | helpful comments | 2013 | 02/10/14 |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Accepted | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2013 | 09/23/14 | |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Accepted | 3 | 4 | 2 | nice experience. good reports. things slowed down because of covid. | 2019 | 07/07/20 |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 quick rounds of R&R. Overall, a very good experience. | 2014 | 01/27/16 |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Accepted | 6 | N/A | 2 | Nice experience. The paper was accepted after the first round revision. The revision review was quite fast too. | 2020 | 05/25/21 |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | Poor referee reports | 2013 | 01/14/14 |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Decent referee reports. Quick turnaround. Will submit again.. | 2014 | 01/24/15 |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Some interesting comments, but not much. (I submitted almost the same paper to another journal). 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. ANyway, I think this is a risk when submitting to general interest journals | 2021 | 04/08/21 |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | Very disappointing experience. Waited 6 months for one report, from which it was clear that the referee hadn't even read the paper properly. Waste of time. | 2014 | 06/02/15 |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2018 | 06/16/19 | |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | Very low process. Reports were split. Both reports were very shorts (one was just a few lines). No additional comment from the editor. Better to avoid. | 2016 | 12/18/16 |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 Week, Sent with reports (and subsequent updates) from earlier submission | 2019 | 03/04/19 |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected reasonably fast after 2 weeks to submission. No comments from the editor though. Weird decision as the paper was not far from being accepted at a better journal. Okay experience overall | 2015 | 05/05/15 |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 3 weeks for a two sentence desk rejection which suggested submitting to a more specialist journal | 2019 | 02/08/19 |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2014 | 05/07/15 | |
| Oxford Economic Papers | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 02/22/13 | |
| Pacific Economic Review | Accepted | 6 | 12 | 1 | Overall good experience. One very good referee report that helps improve the quality of the paper. Process a bit slow | 2018 | 08/29/20 |
| Pacific-Basin Finance Journal | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2014 | 01/28/17 | |
| Pacific-Basin Finance Journal | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 1 | quick turnaround and helpful referee report. | 2017 | 10/26/17 |
| Pacific-Basin Finance Journal | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Extensive and timely report by referee. | 2015 | 05/22/15 |
| Papers in Regional Science | Pending | 2 | N/A | 2 | two referee reports. Quite useful to provide further extensions | 2017 | 12/07/17 |
| Papers in Regional Science | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 3 | Fast processing and three excellent referees that helped to substantially improved the paper | 2016 | 02/01/17 |
| Policy Sciences | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 3 | Good experience. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. The article went online first very quickly after acceptance, which was nice. | 2017 | 05/07/18 |
| Politics, Philosophy, & Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 14 days to desk reject, worthless generic email that said nothing on why it was rejected, merely that they "get lots of papers." | 2016 | 07/16/16 |
| Population and Development Review | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Took two months to desk reject, although initial email assured of a very short response time for desk rejecttions | 2012 | 04/01/13 |
| Population and Environment | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected because of formatting issue but invited to resubmit; took a few days for desk rejectioin | 2013 | 01/23/14 |
| Portugese Economic Journal | Accepted | 3 | N/A | 2 | Portuguese Economic Journal* Great process. Decent referee reports. An uprising journal so I recommend people to publish here. | 2018 | 02/15/19 |
| Post-Communist Economies | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Excellent process. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. | 2015 | 02/18/16 |
| Post-Communist Economies | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | Constructive and very detailed referee comments improved the paper. Great experience. | 2016 | 04/10/17 |
| Post-Communist Economies | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 3 | Very good experience | 2020 | 11/14/20 |
| Psychometrika | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Not interested in the topic, acceptable decision. | 2013 | 08/12/13 |
| Public Choice | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2020 | 05/06/21 | |
| Public Choice | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | first response in about 4 weeks. | 2015 | 06/02/15 |
| Public Choice | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 3 | Very helpful comments. | 2012 | 02/03/13 |
| Public Choice | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | Very efficient. | 2012 | 01/04/13 |
| Public Choice | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Good reports. Excellent and clear communication with editors. Not easy - but straightforward. | 2014 | 10/25/15 |
| Public Choice | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Poor and unhelpful referee reports, club journal | 2016 | 04/13/17 |
| Public Choice | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Referee report was positive and recommended R&R. Editor then read the paper and rejected it. | 2013 | 11/25/13 |
| Public Choice | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | One good report, one bad report. Nice comments and feedback from Associate Editor | 2014 | 10/11/14 |
| Public Choice | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | Referees didn't get the point of the paper, my fault. | 2014 | 04/11/17 |
| Public Choice | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 04/15/13 | |
| Public Choice | Ref Reject | 2 | 2 | 1 | The report was substantive and some comments were helpful, though there was only one of them. I'd submit there again in the future. | 2019 | 09/20/19 |
| Public Choice | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 2017 | 09/20/17 | |
| Public Choice | Ref Reject | 5 | 3 | 2 | rejected after 1 revision, terrible AE | 2011 | 08/02/13 |
| Public Choice | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | rejection after 9 months without any useful comments | 2011 | 04/30/16 |
| Public Choice | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | 1 reject and 1 R&R. Two useful reports and one garbage report thrashing the paper. Overall a good experience! | 2018 | 04/19/18 |
| Public Choice | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 1 good report, 1 useless | 2013 | 10/12/14 |
| Public Choice | Ref Reject | 12 | N/A | 0 | Horrible process. Waited a year for two low quality reports. | 2014 | 04/27/15 |
| Public Choice | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 03/07/14 | |
| Public Choice | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Your paper is not fit for public choice try with public economics. | 2012 | 04/23/14 |
| Public Choice | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor desk rejected after a couple of days due to lack of fit. | 2013 | 01/20/14 |
| Public Choice | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 04/23/14 | |
| Public Choice | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected the next day. Editor was polite. The paper was not a good fit as it did not he approach does not engage the distinctive public choice literature. That sounds fair to me. The Editor suggested a more traditional public finance journal. | 2018 | 04/03/18 |
| Public Choice | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick desk reject and no comments of substance (form letter) but no cost of submission. So not good but frankly much better than other journals | 2014 | 01/30/14 |
| Public Choice | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 2 days. 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) | 2014 | 06/20/14 |
| Public Choice | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast desk reject on subjective grounds. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. Not really a complaint though as there is no submission fee and the process was timely. | 2015 | 03/09/16 |
| Public Choice | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | very fast desk reject (next day). | 2017 | 09/04/17 |
| Public Choice | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor desk rejected after a couple of weeks due to lack of fit. | 2012 | 01/08/13 |
| Public Choice | Desk Reject | 12 | 3 | 2 | very bad handling process | 2010 | 01/01/13 |
| Public Choice | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast desk reject on subjective grounds. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. Not really a complaint though as there is no submission fee and the process was timely. | 2015 | 03/09/16 |
| Public Choice | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2010 | 01/09/13 | |
| Public Choice | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in less than 12 hours | 2018 | 07/21/18 |
| Quantitative Finance | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | One unprofessional and clueless referee. Very quick handling but refereeing quality just absurd. | 2015 | 03/14/16 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 4 | Good process. One very grumpy referee report. 1 on the fence. 2 positive. Katz had very clear advice regarding revision (also what parts of the referee reports to ignore). Good process (and none of the coauthors are from 02139). | 2011 | 02/14/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Even disappointing outcome, three constructive reports, one of them extremely helpful | 2020 | 07/29/21 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 3 | Very quick route to getting useful reports. | 2019 | 10/17/19 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper | 2016 | 11/08/16 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 07/16/13 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 3 | 2014 | 08/22/14 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Pol Antras and ref's high quality jobs (class act comp. AER, JPE), but taste a factor | 2016 | 02/07/17 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 3 | 1 really excellent, positive report. 1 lukewarm, lazy report with many mistakes. 1 insanely negative liquid poop all over my paper, most of it provably wrong. Katz very thoughtful and helpful editor letter. | 2018 | 07/26/18 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 4 | 3 recommend rejection... good reports | 2021 | 07/05/21 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Very happy LRM made it past desk. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. | 2015 | 03/16/15 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Very fast, two high quality referee reports. | 2013 | 02/13/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 3 | 3 reports in 28 days. Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. 1 referree was critical, but offered great suggestions, other 2 were mediocre at best. | 2015 | 05/08/15 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Two reports, both harsh and recommended reject. | 2017 | 01/22/18 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 2011 | 12/20/12 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2017 | 08/08/17 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | Great process, fortunate to make it past desk as LRM grad student, very helpful ref report received 8 days after submission. | 2013 | 12/17/13 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 4 | 2015 | 10/21/15 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/23/12 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 3 | 2 rejects, 1 R&R. That was disappointing. Katz voted to reject. First two reports were "not general interest enough" and didn't have much to say substantively as a result (1-2 pages). The third was R&R, and was more substantive. Helpful and doable things. I was pleased with the experience because I've never made this far with them. | 2017 | 11/03/17 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | One good referree report, one positive but unhelpful, one negative and entirely useless. Editor was Barro. | 2012 | 04/30/13 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | 2014 | 09/06/14 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 12/25/12 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Very kind and constructive reports | 2019 | 08/22/19 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 3 | Two thoughtful refs, one clueless. Katz was encouraging. Great process, fast and fair. | 2018 | 12/31/18 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/24/12 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Fair reject with detailed reports. Editor and refs liked the topic but not the empirical strategy. | 2016 | 04/09/17 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 3 | Amazing turnaround. Wide disagreement among reviewers about paper, but one very helpful report. | 2019 | 09/27/19 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 12/21/12 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Katz wrote his usual bs about my fascinating paper. Ref reports were okay. One decent, the other sloppy. | 2013 | 04/07/13 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. Was advised to submit to a field journal | 2016 | 02/15/17 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Good reports, efficient process, we just didn't meet Katz's "general interest" standard | 2013 | 05/25/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 09/01/13 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Surprised didn't get a desk reject. Shleifer was the editor. 2 pretty decent referee reports.Of course one said "the quality of the model and empirical evidence is below the standards for a journal like the QJE." | 2015 | 01/19/16 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | 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 | 2019 | 12/02/19 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | 2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. Lucky to get past desk reject. | 2014 | 06/21/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Two reports - one thorough and one probably by a grad student | 2011 | 01/04/13 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 3 | 2 good, one grumpy referee report. Comments from Larry very helpful. Ultimately fair. | 2013 | 02/14/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | Submitted a really cool COVID-19 theory and emperical paper. After 8 months of waiting, got the shortest referee paper ever. Referee #1 wrote 1 sentence saying to submit it to AER. Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. Not sure why we didn't get desk rejected. | 2020 | 03/09/21 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Rejected. Larry suggested to send it to field journal. Sent it to another top 5 instead where it got accepted after one round of revisions - never give up guys! | 2013 | 09/26/15 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 06/03/13 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | No comments provided. | 2019 | 09/23/19 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Standard reply by R. Barro after 3 days | 2019 | 12/01/19 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected by Katz within 24 hours. Clearly scanned the paper, deemed not general enough, and recommended other outlets. Nice rejection letter. | 2016 | 07/03/16 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 23 hours and 30 minutes after submission, desk reject from Shleifer. | 2015 | 12/18/15 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Less than 24 hours.Rogert J. Barro was the editor. My previous two research papers were also desk rejected by Barro. They all got published in other journals and a book. Desk rejection by QJE does not convey the quality of the paper. | 2015 | 10/03/15 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | within 12 hours | 2012 | 12/28/12 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | < 1day | 2015 | 06/08/15 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected with short but informative comment within 2 days. | 2021 | 08/19/21 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 01/02/13 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Standard reply by R. Barro after 3 days | 2019 | 12/01/19 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Wrong zipcode | 2014 | 07/30/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 09/17/14 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Helpman rejected in 6 days, no comment | 2011 | 12/21/12 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. We regularly reject without referees the majority of all papers submitted to the QJE. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a paper’s contribution. This decision is not in any sense a negative comment on the quality of the paper. We believe this policy serves contributors who are saved months of unnecessary delays. | 2013 | 05/01/20 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 Week (Desk Reject) | 2018 | 09/04/18 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Katz rejected in two hours with comments that seemed to be written for some other paper. | 2013 | 11/06/13 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/20/12 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. We regularly reject without referees the majority of all papers submitted to the QJE. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a paper’s contribution. This decision is not in any sense a negative comment on the quality of the paper. We believe this policy serves contributors who are saved months of unnecessary delays. | 2013 | 05/01/20 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in the 24 hour window. Interesting but not a good fit. | 2019 | 07/12/19 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Robert J. Barro desk rejected the paper in less than 24 hours. Although QJE may be one of the oldest professional journal of economics published in the English language, it is also stale. | 2016 | 06/21/20 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | No comments from Katz except go to field journal. | 2016 | 07/27/16 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Katz rejected in less than 24 hours with some comments. | 2012 | 12/20/12 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2010 | 01/09/13 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 11/22/16 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 27 minutes for a desk reject | 2018 | 12/17/18 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 06/03/13 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. We regularly reject without referees the majority of all papers submitted to the QJE. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a paper’s contribution. This decision is not in any sense a negative comment on the quality of the paper. We believe this policy serves contributors who are saved months of unnecessary delays. | 2013 | 05/01/20 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very quick response from Larry Katz. Not so many comments; recommended two very good field journals. | 2014 | 06/09/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Lasted 4 days! Barro says not sufficiently general interest, and advises to try a field journal instead. | 2018 | 05/04/18 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | in less than 24h | 2012 | 08/02/13 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 12/24/12 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in 4 hours. The editor clearly had a look at least at the introduction and gave encouraging comments. | 2019 | 06/07/19 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2021 | 06/29/21 | |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected within 24hrs by Katz. Suggested AEJ:AE, RESTAT and top field. | 2014 | 08/06/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Barro Rejected: less than 24 hours. | 2012 | 12/20/12 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 24 hours. | 2015 | 01/18/16 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk after 1 day from Katz, very polite and parsing of the paper, although not GI | 2021 | 05/05/21 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | as stated ("within 24 hours") we got an editorial reject claiming the lack of interest for a broad audience. fair comment. recommended Journal of Development Economics. | 2014 | 12/08/15 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 48 hour DR, no particular comments from Shleifer except interesting paper, suggest AEJ:applied | 2016 | 02/16/17 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. We regularly reject without referees the majority of all papers submitted to the QJE. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a paper’s contribution. This decision is not in any sense a negative comment on the quality of the paper. We believe this policy serves contributors who are saved months of unnecessary delays. | 2013 | 05/01/20 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | What can I say? I'm not part of the club | 2010 | 01/29/13 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected the next day by Katz | 2016 | 11/19/16 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Receive desk rejection in 24 hours, editor read the paper and suggested to top field journal. | 2020 | 04/25/20 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in 1 week. Editor suggested field journal. | 2014 | 01/28/15 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. | 2011 | 04/30/13 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Came back within 4 hours, nice letter by Katz with suggestions of where to submit | 2015 | 02/04/15 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 5 days for a desk reject. But the editor read the paper, and recommends Econometrica or JET or TE | 2013 | 03/17/13 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Katz needed less time to skim the paper and offer a few good comments than I needed to write a one-sentence cover letter | 2017 | 07/10/17 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | It is a Finance paper. Desk rejected in 2 days with a very short report "better fit for a finance journal" | 2018 | 04/20/18 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after 3 days from Shleifer. Seemed like he carefully considered the paper. | 2021 | 02/07/22 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | quick. Suggested to submit to a good journal. | 2014 | 02/28/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Less than 1 hour. New record? | 2017 | 09/23/18 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Less than 24 hours. | 2014 | 09/27/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. Comments based entirely on abstract. | 2013 | 05/07/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick with a suggestion to go top field. | 2014 | 03/31/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | A couple nice comments from Shleifer after two days | 2014 | 05/25/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very quick rejection (24 hours), with nice words from the editor, who obviously read the paper. | 2015 | 04/20/16 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | useful advice | 2013 | 06/11/13 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. | 2009 | 04/23/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Katz rejected my paper before I was done submitting it; suspect time travel | 2014 | 01/08/15 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Answer in 24h. The editor suggested a field journal in a field that had nothing to do with our paper. I heard rumors they make desk rejections using bots, this one actually looks like it. | 2020 | 02/19/20 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 5 days, paper is too specific for QJE, Helpman suggested another journal | 2014 | 12/06/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | fast and uninformative | 2014 | 02/20/14 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Usual "not general enough" comment. | 2014 | 01/07/15 |
| Quarterly Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | A form-letter rejection from Katz. He might have read the abstract--clearly doesn't know the literature enough to see the contribution. No meaningful comments. 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. But I'm not in any club and not at an elite school (by choice). Except when I have coauthored with someone who is at an elite school, I've been desk rejected every time at QJE. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. I get it. People need filters. But the discipline should find another way. | 2018 | 05/15/18 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Pending | 4 | N/A | 3 | Good reports. Armstrong is so much better than Hermalin... | 2015 | 03/01/16 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | Very impressed with comments received by the co-editor (Mark Armstrong), which were more substantive than the reviewers. | 2010 | 02/28/14 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Accepted | 6 | 3 | 2 | 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. Overall very good quality of reports and very helpful guidance from the editor. | 2016 | 05/21/17 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | 4 | 2 | rejected after 2 rounds of revisions. complete waste of time | 2015 | 02/09/18 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2014 | 01/06/15 | |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Very nice editor's letter. Two good referee reports, useful comments | 2017 | 09/26/17 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/21/12 | |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | 2016 | 09/18/16 | |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | theory; 2 decent referee reports and 1 suggestive letter from an editor | 2013 | 12/06/13 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | Awful experience! After waiting for more than 5 months I got 0 Referee reports and a rejection based on very loose comments. Very disappointed after the long wait and paying a 100 Euro fee... | 2016 | 07/07/16 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal. | 2017 | 11/27/17 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 01/29/13 | |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Helpful referee reports and editor | 2016 | 07/11/17 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | 3 | 2 | R&R, then reject. Despite disappointing turnout, reports were good with useful and specific suggestions on ways to improve the paper. Also useful comments from the editor. | 2016 | 03/11/17 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 01/29/13 | |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | One good report (weak r&r). the other report is empty (rejection). | 2013 | 02/18/14 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2010 | 08/02/13 | |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Solid, fair reports. | 2014 | 03/21/15 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report | 2013 | 03/31/15 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 2013 | 10/29/13 | |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | nice letter from editor, good and fair comments | 2014 | 01/29/15 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | 1 ref report good. others ref reports okay | 2011 | 04/12/13 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Referees read the paper, but not well, as they asked me to do things that I had already done... Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. Editor acknowledge that it was a bad draw. | 2016 | 11/12/16 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 01/10/13 | |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | 6 | 3 | 10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. Paper went multiple rounds over 2 years. One referee kept claiming one thing was wrong. That thing (s)he claimed was wrong was in fact trivially correct, but the referee was completely clueless. Kathryn spier, the editor, was even more clueless and unable to see that we were right and s(he) was wrong. In doubt, Spier decided to reject the paper. | 2016 | 08/23/18 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | One report useful, the other contentless | 2013 | 12/14/13 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | sad but fair | 2013 | 06/17/13 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Decent reports highlighting different issues, mostly sympathetic, but tough. Editor rejected, but I have a feeling that both refs recommended R&R for different reasons. | 2013 | 07/17/14 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2 weeks | 2014 | 09/30/14 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2.5 weeks. Per editor, not good fit for IO bent of the journal, not broad enough for general interest journal. Full refund. | 2018 | 08/29/18 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection came in 10 days. Pretty rough coments from an editor who clearly did not get the point of the paper. However, I take as it was me not being able to pass the make the point I wanted. | 2016 | 11/30/16 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2 weeks. Had a paper published there recently. 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. Disappointing. | 2012 | 02/28/14 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | (Fair?) Desk reject after 3 days. Editor suggested JIE. Submission refund. | 2013 | 02/04/14 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Not all theory papers are welcomed. RAND prefers IO topic. | 2018 | 08/03/18 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2019 | 03/31/20 | |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 4.5 weeks to desk reject. Submission refund. | 2017 | 11/24/17 |
| RAND Journal of Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Two weeks desk reject. Brief comments from the editor. | 2019 | 03/26/20 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Pending | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2015 | 02/09/16 | |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Pending | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2015 | 01/13/16 | |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2020 | 09/15/20 | |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2011 | 01/11/13 | |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor | 2012 | 07/07/13 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Efficient process, stuck to advertised timings. Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper. | 2015 | 08/20/18 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | decent referee reports, overall good experience | 2018 | 11/27/18 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | The submission and revision process was great and timely. 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. However, everything was fixed, and overall I am happy | 2017 | 09/17/18 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2010 | 02/13/13 | |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Accepted | 1 | 1 | 2 | Good experiences --- fast (1 month for both the first and R&R round), good reports, editor is also very helpful. | 2018 | 12/17/18 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Accepted | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2016 | 07/17/18 | |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 3 | The review process yielded good referee reports in round 1. Round 2 also yielded good referee reports too. | 2015 | 12/19/15 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 2 | Good reports and additional comments by serious editor. | 2016 | 07/14/16 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Good experience. | 2014 | 03/12/15 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal. Fair enough. The other report was *atrocious*. | 2016 | 01/24/18 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Useless reports. | 2012 | 01/19/13 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very efficient journal. Decision was made in 45 days. Both referees have good understanding of the topic. The first referee points out at the weaknesses of the paper and proposes reasonable solutions. The second one is more critical and seems to be angry by the fact that I'm not citing his work. | 2016 | 09/24/16 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very reputable journal with fast response policy which is good for authors: desk rejection in weeks, referee rejection in 2-3 months (usually). We got referee rejection in 2.5 months: 2 referees, one favours RR, other rejects. Down side: reports are quite short: 1 paragraph each. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. We have no new methodology because, when tried, the data suggest traditional fits better: not interesting enough for RSUE. Sum up: Fast but not cool, Editor. | 2015 | 02/02/16 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Fast and Efficient Journal. One very good report, one OK. | 2012 | 02/15/13 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2019 | 07/22/19 | |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2015 | 04/27/15 | |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Fast and Efficient Journal. One very good report, one OK. | 2012 | 02/15/13 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Editor is bonkers, he said article was outside scope of journal.when it was clearly regiona/urban economics article. | 2013 | 08/05/13 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor desk rejected in 24 hours | 2014 | 11/09/14 |
| Regional Science and Urban Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected within 10 days because the topic was not fit to the journal (it may have been a reasonable response given the topic). No complains. | 2014 | 06/20/14 |
| Research in Economics | Accepted | 2 | 4 | 2 | Two useful reports that improved the paper. Editor Michele Boldrin did a good job handling the paper. | 2018 | 04/16/18 |
| Research in Economics | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 1 | A bit long but very helpful referee report | 2013 | 12/10/13 |
| Research in Economics | Accepted | 1 | N/A | 0 | Paper was accepted in 1 month after the submission. Very fast process, that is why I submitted to the journal. | 2020 | 02/19/20 |
| Research in Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Ok and efficient process - was told at one point that Chirs Pissarides had to approve acceptance our paper because of the subject matter, which seemed implausible | 2017 | 06/16/19 |
| Research in Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Agreed that this journal is a joke. The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. After more data were collected, the editor said "a referee suggested empirical work was not serious enough." I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided. If you don't like my paper then desk reject the first time, and don't ask me to resubmit! | 2015 | 06/17/16 |
| Research in Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2020 | 10/13/20 | |
| Research in Economics | Desk Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | This journal is a joke. 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. No substantive comments about the content of the paper at all. | 2015 | 11/07/15 |
| Research in Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | The new editor rejected the paper 2 days after submitted it. The decision is quite fair and briefly justified. He gave few recommendations. | 2014 | 11/04/14 |
| Research in Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | It took more than 2 months for desk reject | 2020 | 10/13/20 |
| Research in Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Editor rejected because paper topic (public finance) is not what tey are currently looking for. While the goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. We give the editors one week to judge the overall contribution and if acceptable send your paper to an associate editor. I received an answer of the editor after 2 months. | 2020 | 10/27/20 |
| Research in Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Letter gives no mention of reasons for rejection and even unclear on paper's final status. | 2020 | 10/17/20 |
| Resource and Energy Economics | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2018 | 04/23/19 | |
| Resource and Energy Economics | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 04/24/14 | |
| Resource and Energy Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | 2015 | 02/01/17 | |
| Resource and Energy Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 10/01/13 | |
| Resource and Energy Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 1 | 2011 | 10/30/13 | |
| Review of Development Economics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | The status has been "Pending Editor Triage" for 10 months. No reply to my e-mail. | 2016 | 08/08/17 |
| Review of Development Economics | Pending | 16 | N/A | 0 | submission was in 2017. Waited for almost a year and sent a couple of emails to the editor; promised us a response in two weeks. Nothing happened. It has been about 16 months now. We sent two more emails about the status of the paper and did not get a response from the office. | 2017 | 01/26/19 |
| Review of Development Economics | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Journal always replied to me saying it is delayed and I finally withdrew after 2 years with no response. | 2018 | 11/24/20 |
| Review of Development Economics | Pending | 14 | N/A | 0 | Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. In May 2016 the editor promised a decision within a days. A number of emails without reply since then. In December 2016 we managed to get a reply from the managing editor with the same story, that the decision was a matter of days. He requested that we sent him a reminder after a week. We have done that, after several weeks, no answer. | 2015 | 01/13/17 |
| Review of Development Economics | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | The initial resposen took too long (almost 4 moth to be sent our to referees). I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. However, once the paper was assigned to referees, the speed was normal. So do keep an eye on the paper and cotnact the editor if necessary. | 2016 | 12/21/17 |
| Review of Development Economics | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Very pleasant process. Great editor who was great at handling the process and chasing referees. | 2018 | 01/29/19 |
| Review of Development Economics | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | 2019 | 08/12/20 | |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Pending | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2019 | 12/19/19 | |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Pending | 1 | N/A | 2 | Fast R&R with reasonable reports and encouraging editor letter. | 2020 | 10/14/20 |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Accepted | 3 | 4 | 2 | Very efficient process, very good comments from both the reviewers and the editor. | 2016 | 01/08/18 |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 3 | Very efficient process, paper improved with referee comments. | 2021 | 03/24/22 |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Accepted | 1 | N/A | 2 | Extremely fast. Great comments from editors and referees. Best experience in a long time. | 2020 | 05/04/21 |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Accepted | 2 | N/A | 2 | Good experience and fast acceptance. | 2020 | 02/04/21 |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Negative reaction of referees. Could have been more lucky with referees, but at least it was very efficient. | 2020 | 07/18/20 |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | high quality reports | 2020 | 02/23/21 |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Ref Reject | 3 | 4 | 2 | Very unlucky submission: First round Reject and Resubmit. Resubmitted after 3+ months of work, but replies to referees went lost and paper got rejected. Editor realized the mistake and suggested to resubmit after implementing additional revisions (another 2+ months of work). Resubmitted and the editor rejected the paper on the basis of concerns that were never raised before in the process (and are incorrect IMHO). Wasted 17 months. Not sure I'll ever submit something to RED again | 2017 | 04/08/19 |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Negative reaction of referees. Could have been more lucky with referees, but at least it was very efficient. | 2020 | 07/18/20 |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Despite the rejection, a very fair process with constructive comments and a fast response. | 2021 | 07/01/21 |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Very efficient. Reports were reasonable. | 2018 | 09/03/18 |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very efficient process | 2017 | 01/15/18 |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very efficient; referee reports are of pretty high quality | 2017 | 11/27/18 |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very efficient editorial screening | 2017 | 01/05/18 |
| Review of Economic Dynamics | Desk Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Both referees recommended revise and resubmit but the editor came up with a nonsensical reason to reject the paper. | 2017 | 05/26/19 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 09/17/14 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Pending | 7 | N/A | 3 | Very good reports that help us to improve the paper a lot. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. | 2013 | 01/13/15 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 02/10/13 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Accepted | 7 | 5 | 3 | Great comments from the referees and editor. The paper is now much stronger. | 2012 | 09/12/18 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Accepted | 6 | 6 | 2 | Excellent editorial service from Bruno Biais. Good comments from refs that really helped the paper. | 2009 | 01/29/13 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Accepted | 5 | 4 | 3 | Tough but receptive referees. In the end the paper got much improved. | 2014 | 12/13/15 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 5 | Reject and Resubmit | 2010 | 12/21/12 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | In reality, the paper is poorly motivated and the link between the model and the anecdotal evidence discussed in the introduction is not clear. More importantly, the analysis is flawed by a number of major shortcomings. The model is not presented in a clear and intelligible way. The structure of the game, the policy and strategy spaces and other concepts are not introduced with sufficient clarity. There are several claims that are either wrong or very poorly explained (e.g., a Nash equilibrium need not be Pareto optimal!). In general, it is difficult to follow the derivations due to a lack of intuitive explanations. Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. The equation to be estimated is not well explained and basic econometric issues (e.g., the problems related to the inclusion of lagged dependent variables) are not discussed. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. | 2009 | 04/23/14 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Good report and fast desk | 2013 | 06/03/13 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Useful comments from editor; one really great ref. report and a couple of pretty good ones. | 2012 | 03/01/13 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 2015 | 10/30/15 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. 1 report was nonsensical and tipped it to rejection | 2017 | 02/23/18 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | two very weak reports, editor obviously did not read the paper, overall very bad experience | 2015 | 06/23/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | One weak report, one reviewer that clearly did not read the paper but did not like what he claimed we did and suggested we do other things which did make much less sense and one reviewer that gave comments that were pretty easy to address. Rejected by editor. I didn't expect an accept here, but I def did not expect to be rejected on the grounds of such poor review reports. | 2020 | 10/14/20 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 4 | very good reports | 2012 | 02/11/13 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | one good report, one very good report | 2013 | 05/27/14 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper. | 2013 | 02/13/14 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 1 serious person pushing his method. 2 students with mostly useless comments. I thought that I deserved more respect. Oh well, on to the next journal. | 2016 | 03/26/17 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 4 | Split referees, Adda came down on the side of the negative ones. Not very useful comments from any of them. | 2013 | 02/19/14 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | good reports | 2019 | 04/08/20 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/24/12 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 6 | 4 | 0 | 2013 | 09/17/14 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | Fair rejection; great reports | 2015 | 09/18/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | 1 report from a senior researcher, who thinks that our paper is a fine exercise but suits field journal better. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. The editor wrote the 2nd report. | 2014 | 01/13/15 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 4 | very good reports | 2012 | 02/11/13 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 02/13/13 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | interesting and polite reports. In general, efficient journal | 2014 | 12/03/14 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 2 months, 2 good reports & 1 trash report, fair outcome and ok process | 2016 | 10/28/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2016 | 12/09/17 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | one very weird report, asking to cite an unknown WP, from a PhD student... | 2005 | 08/02/13 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | 2013 | 11/01/13 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 2016 | 02/28/18 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 4 | 2015 | 08/19/15 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 01/16/13 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | One R&R with minor rev, one inscrutable report, and one unfair report with incorrect claims. Editor read paper and gave good comments, but ultimately rejected. | 2017 | 11/18/17 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | ambivalent | 2013 | 01/25/14 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Response time was decent. 1 short and useless report, 1 incompetent (was the reason the paper was rejected) - the referee could not understand that his major criticism was trivial and was dedicated one line in introduction, 1 favorable report. | 2015 | 06/14/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 3 | One crappy referee report, one useful referee report, one grad student referee report. | 2014 | 07/27/14 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Two good reports. One useless. | 2012 | 04/02/13 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). One was favorable, the other was on the fence. The report that was on fence did not understand some of the points made in the paper, as his biggest concern was addressed in the introduction itself. I think s/he would have been satisfied by an appendix section on the issue raised. | 2015 | 01/18/17 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | One report o.k., one useless report | 2011 | 04/04/13 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 9 | 8 | 3 | Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). Referee reports were lenthy and very useful. Obviously, being turned down after a two-year long process and a very extensive revision is bad for a young author. | 2016 | 01/20/18 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Three days to desk rejection. | 2015 | 01/20/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 4 | Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. Though nothing extremely deep, comments were of acceptable quality. | 2013 | 04/02/14 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | Solid reports; fair rejection. | 2009 | 01/29/13 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Bad experience. One referee had clearly read the paper. Other referee hadn't read the paper at all. Made comments about Maximum Likelihood etc when I was using Method of Simuated Moments. All other comments were mentioned and addressed in the paper. Editor didn't read the paper, based her decision on reports. | 2018 | 12/04/18 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | 100 days for 2 useless reports showing lack of understanding of whats going on in the paper | 2020 | 12/11/21 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Nice and quick, but bad 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 | 2018 | 04/19/19 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Very clear that two of the three referees hadn't read the paper. They raised concerns that very literally addressed in section heads. The third referee recommended acceptance, but the editor rejected. Will not submit here in the future. | 2015 | 02/08/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Two helpful referee reports. Editor wrote another helpful report as well. | 2018 | 04/02/18 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Decent reports | 2013 | 06/27/13 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 21 | N/A | 2 | One report was not very helpful. I think the editor may have been waiting on a 3rd report, glad they didn't wait any longer (20 weeks is enough to wait for a reject). | 2014 | 07/21/14 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | One great, very helpful report; one report that made an honest effort, but wasn't useful; one report that was one paragraph long and littered with spelling mistakes. | 2016 | 06/19/17 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 3 | 2011 | 12/21/12 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 3 | 2011 | 12/22/12 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Not too bad an experience. Editor clearly read the paper and claimed a referee did too. Fair rejection. | 2015 | 09/11/15 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. | 2014 | 03/27/14 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Took quite long for a desk rejection. Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. | 2020 | 02/26/20 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2010 | 12/21/12 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in a week. Editor read the paper and gave helpful feedback. Recommended field journals... | 2016 | 12/06/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Clueless editor thinks results are of narrow interest. Apparently is unaware of large literature in multiple fields to which topic pertains. | 2016 | 09/19/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Jerome Adda was editor. Rejected for not significant enough contribution. 2 week turnaround. Suggested field journal. | 2015 | 02/10/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Took quite long for a desk rejection. Form rejection letter saying contribution is not general enough.. | 2020 | 02/26/20 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected within two weeks. Form-letter rejection. | 2019 | 06/07/19 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Paper sent to an editor with completely different interests. Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic. | 2014 | 05/31/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 12/03/15 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor suggested a field journal. | 2013 | 06/20/13 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Not sure whether to classify this as a desk or referee reject. An associate editor left some comments, which showed that they read at least some of the paper. Not sure I'd call it a full referee report, however, and only receiving one report is strange. Probably the editor took a look at my zip code, and told the AE that "this should be quick". | 2015 | 10/30/15 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick response within three days. Recommend field journals | 2020 | 04/25/20 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 27 days by Kurt Mitman. Contribution not general enough suggests Review of Economics and Statistics. No other comments. | 2021 | 02/22/21 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Two weeks. Editor obviously read the paper. Contribution too small. | 2014 | 07/24/14 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Not big enough contribution. Editor clearly read the paper. Recommended second tier general interest journals. | 2015 | 05/19/15 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 1 day after assigned to co-editor | 2018 | 03/08/18 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Useful letter from the editor Dirk Krueger (aprox. 2 weeks) | 2018 | 08/21/18 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2010 | 01/09/13 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 8 Days to get a desk reject. Editor obviously read the paper and had great comments. Liked the paper but contribution too small. Would definitely recommend it even if it's a longshot. | 2016 | 06/20/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | My impression is that the editor didn't even bother looking at the paper. | 2016 | 08/13/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | too long for desk reject? | 2011 | 04/13/13 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 06/03/13 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected after a week with no comments. | 2016 | 12/02/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very quick desk reject. Only got form letter. | 2016 | 09/20/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2011 | 08/02/13 | |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Submitted the paper 11:45. Went downstairs for some snack. Came back to my office at 12:05. Checked my e-mail and editor rejected the paper. Reason - paper was too specialized. | 2016 | 01/17/17 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 1 week. Minor comments from editor who appears to have at least gotten the gist of the paper. | 2015 | 02/19/16 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Contribution is too small. | 2018 | 05/09/19 |
| Review of Economic Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Replied within a week but editor clearly read the paper and identified main points which, however, seemed not important to him to warrant publication in RES. Obviously an inevitably subjective decision, but given this, the handling was very fair. | 2016 | 10/25/16 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Pending | 20 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 11/06/13 | |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Pending | 3 | 3 | 3 | High quality reports. | 2018 | 08/30/18 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Accepted | 9 | 8 | 3 | Fair process and excellent reports. | 2019 | 03/25/21 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Fantastic experience. Very fast rounds with very insightful and reasonable referee reports and suggestions by the editor. | 2019 | 09/02/20 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Accepted | 3 | 7 | 5 | multiple rounds, one of round took about a year | 2018 | 02/05/21 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Accepted | 14 | 6 | 3 | Very slow, but fair process overall. 2 very good reports and one poor report. | 2012 | 02/25/15 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Accepted | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2014 | 07/10/19 | |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Reports were semi thorough and okay, appreciated the fairly quick response | 2014 | 08/24/15 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | The referees raised concerns that we were not able to see before, and they were fair. Gorodnichenko was nice. Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work." | 2014 | 02/18/15 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 01/06/13 | |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | 2 R&R, 1 reject - referee rejected | 2013 | 06/07/13 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 0 | After 7 months at the journal, I get one extremely low quality referee report. The report must have been farmed out to some grad student who couldn't write. I understand there is variability in this process, but it was a terrible experience. | 2012 | 07/17/14 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | One low quality (taste-based) referee report | 2018 | 10/19/18 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | Nice reports. All reports are positive. Comments are mainly about rephrasing implications and minor issues. Paper not anywhere close to editor's field of interest. | 2016 | 04/04/17 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports | 2016 | 01/19/17 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 0 | 7 months for 1 decent report and 1 poor report. I don't disagree with decision, but too long for a relatively straight-forward empirical paper. | 2016 | 07/17/17 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | One low quality (taste-based) referee report | 2018 | 10/19/18 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | Very good quality ref reports | 2011 | 12/25/12 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Fast process and fairly good reports. | 2018 | 04/20/18 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | 2017 | 06/16/19 | |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | 6 months for useless reports. A journal to avoid. | 2016 | 10/28/16 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Very good referee reports. Mark Watson was the editor | 2010 | 12/22/12 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 1 super helpfull report, 1 useless, 1 boring. Still, was super fast and allows to improve the paper. Asim I. Khwaja editor | 2018 | 12/12/18 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 3 | Two out of three referee reports were good one was much less. Thorough review | 2013 | 07/29/14 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 3 | Reports were pretty good. Eight months is a long wait though. | 2014 | 01/22/15 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | 7 months for two very low quality reports. Editor just pointed at reports and made no obvious effort to think about the paper. | 2016 | 09/20/16 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 4 | 2011 | 08/02/13 | |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 1 | highly unprofessional, the report is not useful, comments make little sense and contradict to the extant literature on the topic. | 2014 | 07/03/15 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | Slow. Editor Chandra rejected with one ref report. | 2018 | 02/08/19 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 2 | 3 | 3 | Very fast process. 1 good report and 2 of low quality probably written by grad students. | 2018 | 08/14/18 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | 2016 | 11/12/16 | |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | 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. Horrible experience. Never again. From here on, AEJs are the way to go outside top 5. | 2013 | 07/21/14 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 13 | N/A | 3 | Fair referee reports, but I had to wait pretty long. | 2013 | 09/10/14 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | 2016 | 08/30/16 | |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Three short reports. Two decent, one useless and completely wrong. Editor suggested alternative outlets. Good experience overall | 2018 | 02/08/19 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Response was less than two months from submission -- super quick. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. At least they were fast. | 2015 | 09/04/15 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | The reviewer's reports came up 2 months after submission. It than took the editor (Mark Watson) another 6 months to read reports and make a decision. Very inefficient handling process | 2009 | 01/07/13 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 10 | N/A | 3 | 10 months is too long to get back. Reports were of moderate quality. | 2016 | 12/26/16 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 3 | Very good and insightful reports | 2012 | 07/30/13 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | A bit of wait but ok for econ standards. Three good reports and fair decision. | 2020 | 05/12/21 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 02/02/13 | |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | 7 months for 2 reviews (and one reviewer was already familiar with paper). Editor provided no additional comments. What takes so long? | 2017 | 12/13/17 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk Reject in one week for lack of contribution | 2016 | 09/07/16 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Awfully slow. Editor Chandra took four months to desk reject a straightforward empirical paper. | 2018 | 02/08/19 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 2 weeks | 2016 | 06/23/16 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast desk reject. 3 Top 5 referees and editor said the paper was a good fit for ReStat, meh... | 2018 | 08/22/18 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Amitabh Chandra rejected in one month with no infomation | 2013 | 01/02/14 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 10/05/16 | |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Fast desk reject, no substantial comments. $89. | 2018 | 09/12/18 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 09/09/15 | |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2 months for a generic desk rejection with no comment whatsoever.. but of course I am not in the club. | 2015 | 04/09/15 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 12/03/15 | |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | no feedback | 2015 | 07/09/15 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Standard rejection letter. Quick (10 days), but useless. | 2018 | 11/16/18 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | called me a poopyhead | 2020 | 02/17/21 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Not even a single remotely useful comment. | 2019 | 04/15/19 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in one day | 2013 | 04/03/13 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected in 10 days. Thanks for quick decision. | 2015 | 08/13/15 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in a few days. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. | 2021 | 02/04/21 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Almost two months for desk reject, no submission refund | 2012 | 12/27/12 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Expected at least some referee reports but got a bad match editor-wise. | 2018 | 11/14/18 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected within a week, no fee refunds. Not clear if the paper was even read. | 2020 | 02/25/20 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/21/12 | |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection a week after submission | 2019 | 08/26/19 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 2 months! Editor suggested top field, decided not to send to referrees due to "narrowness of topic." You needed 2 months to tell me that? | 2016 | 06/20/16 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk rejected in 3 days. The editor likes the idea, but things the method is not new, so recommended to a field journal. | 2015 | 02/13/15 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | No comments | 2013 | 01/18/14 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 1 | 1 | 0 | Desk reject after one month, no comments just standard letter | 2021 | 02/16/21 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick rejection (12 days), with no comments on the paper | 2015 | 04/20/16 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very quick turnaround (~4 days), encouraging response suggesting field journals | 2020 | 03/30/20 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rodrik rejected 10 days after submission, advised a field journal | 2010 | 01/07/13 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Amit Khandelwal desk rejected a RCT health paper in 2 days with no specific comment..no refund of submission fee, I do not belong to their club | 2018 | 03/16/18 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | desk reject in 10 days | 2013 | 06/04/13 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Very quick turnaround (~4 days), encouraging response suggesting field journals | 2020 | 03/30/20 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | no comments | 2020 | 03/15/21 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Took a couple of days. | 2012 | 01/04/13 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | DR after one week. No feedback and no useful suggestion in the rejection letter. Useless experience. | 2021 | 04/30/21 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2 months for a generic desk rejection with not 1 signle comment on the paper. Not very impressed. | 2015 | 08/11/15 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Another 2+ month desk reject. No refund. Ridiculous. | 2016 | 09/29/16 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Rejected at ECMA, told a great fit at ReSTAT, desk rejected with generic letter after two days (and I'm in the club) | 2019 | 07/10/19 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2.5 months for a desk reject with no feedback (labor paper) | 2015 | 01/05/16 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Super standard rejection letter from Olivier Coibion, no advice whatsoever... | 2020 | 03/26/21 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Two months to a desk reject, with zero information from the editor's response. Frustrating. | 2012 | 04/30/13 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | It was quick. Basically got a response on the next working day following a weekend. | 2012 | 04/07/13 |
| Review of Economics and Statistics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Near immediate desk reject (48 hr) | 2014 | 03/28/14 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Pending | 13 | N/A | 0 | Extremely long wait at this journal for comments. A colleague from another school submitted there and also had to wait a long time for very poor quality referee reports. I would submit again or recommend this outlet! | 2017 | 12/14/18 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Pending | 3 | N/A | 3 | Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. Very happy with experience so far. | 2015 | 10/02/15 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Pending | 11 | N/A | 0 | This journal probably saw better days but as of now it is really a joke. I submitted two papers and both took a very long time to get referee comments from and the sets of referee comments read like they were written by undergraduate students. Do yourself a favor: if you have a journal that fits the topic of this journal, just submit it to JPopEcon, LE or the new Journal of Economics of Ageing. All of them are much speedier and you will actually get helpful comments that will improve your paper. Not sure what the editor(s) are doing at this journal but whatever it is, it is not quality overseeing and editing of papers. | 2019 | 09/14/19 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Pending | 16 | N/A | 0 | Extremely slow journal and not well managed journal. Avoid if you can. | 2018 | 08/13/19 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | Absolutely disappointed by extremely poor response from the editor (Horioka). This guy really needs to not be a referee if he can not do a thorough job in actually reading paper. It is a disgrace to the profession reflects poorly on the journal. | 2018 | 12/14/18 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Accepted | 3 | 8 | 2 | Actually a nice experience. Clear and concise communication with insightful and prfound comments by editor and reviewers. | 2020 | 09/02/21 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2013 | 12/02/13 | |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Accepted | 3 | 4 | 2 | Grossbard handled the paper and accepted conditional on rewrite around her useless and poorly cited old work. Withdrew paper and was published at a much better outlet. Avoid at all costs.. | 2017 | 08/14/19 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Helpful comments from referees and editor. | 2018 | 05/26/19 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Accepted | 0 | N/A | 0 | 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. Extremely disappointed. | 2018 | 12/09/18 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Referee reports were quite helpful in refining the paper. | 2013 | 08/04/20 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). Both referees agreed and specifically pointed out that the manuscript should be published. The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. Avoid avoid avoid this outlet if you are looking for a serious journal that will follow a fair referee process. | 2018 | 11/24/18 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | REHO is a scam, not a journal. All editors have lined up to publish their own papers (just see the forthcoming papers, 3 (three!!) forthcoming papers by the Chief editor shoshana. The referee reports were also awful. Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. | 2020 | 03/04/21 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Ref Reject | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2019 | 09/13/19 | |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 1 useless report, and second was useful report. Editor rejected the paper, but it was not unexpected. | 2015 | 10/03/15 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 2 | Two solid referee reports. Even though my paper was rejected, they will be useful to improve the paper prior to resubmission to another journal. | 2020 | 09/12/20 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Ref Reject | 5 | 1 | 3 | One nasty and not helpful review, but two others were very constructive. Good experience, even my paper was rejected. | 2013 | 03/13/16 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | very quick response and a useful referee report | 2018 | 05/18/18 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 08/13/13 | |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 2 | Rejected after revision for reasons that had nothing to do with the revision and should've been brought up on the first decision. Main reason for this is that they assigned a different associate editor on the second round which I find highly unusual. Never again! | 2015 | 12/04/15 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 0 | Horioka the editor. Absolutely idiotic low-quality comments. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. | 2017 | 01/07/19 |
| Review of Economics of the Household | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in one week. Beyond the scope of the journal. | 2019 | 01/12/19 |
| Review of Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Worst referee report ever. The discussant in the shitty conf gives better comments. | 2012 | 06/23/13 |
| Review of Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 0 | 2017 | 06/09/17 | |
| Review of Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 rounds of r+r | 2010 | 12/28/12 |
| Review of Finance | Ref Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Edmans said he wanted RoF to be top 3. Turns out that means he's following the Schwert model: don't read the paper, regurgitate the reviewer's comments in the decision letter. | 2017 | 12/07/17 |
| Review of Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | ref reports were to the point but could have been higher quality for amount of time under review | 2014 | 08/06/14 |
| Review of Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Two reports, one useful, one much less so | 2016 | 05/31/16 |
| Review of Finance | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Worst referee report ever with unsubstantiated claims. Hollifield copy-pasted unsubstantiated claims in rejection letter apparently without even having a look on the paper. | 2014 | 10/23/14 |
| Review of Finance | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. Seemed to have an agenda, as though I offended his work. Will not submit here again. | 2014 | 01/12/15 |
| Review of Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Good referee reports, quick response | 2015 | 09/23/15 |
| Review of Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 01/21/13 | |
| Review of Finance | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | one useful, one meaningless report | 2020 | 10/04/20 |
| Review of Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | One report only, not very helpful, relatively slow for just one report. | 2020 | 04/28/20 |
| Review of Finance | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | Good referee report + some comments from AE | 2012 | 12/30/12 |
| Review of Finance | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | desk reject after 2-3 weeks | 2021 | 08/10/21 |
| Review of Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in two hours with a polite email that basically said "your methodology is wrong and your question is wrong." Bazinga! | 2019 | 03/19/19 |
| Review of Finance | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/28/12 | |
| Review of Financial Studies | Accepted | 1 | N/A | 1 | very efficient process but experience depends crucially on editor | 2013 | 01/16/15 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 rounds and then accepted | 2007 | 05/22/14 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 report (from different referees) each round. | 2010 | 01/29/13 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | one recommended R&R the other did not read the paper was clearly ideologically biased, the editor sided with the latter | 2012 | 03/28/13 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | Quick process, referees made some good comments, not a bad experience | 2021 | 05/24/21 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | one positive referee report, one negative referee report. Editor took issue with a methodological aspect of the paper and rejected | 2013 | 02/24/14 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Good referee reports. | 2017 | 10/01/19 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Fair process | 2020 | 10/08/20 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Referees did not understand the contribution of the paper. Thought already in literature. | 2017 | 10/04/17 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2014 | 07/07/14 | |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Constructive comments. | 2016 | 11/15/16 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | 2011 | 12/28/12 | |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | fair report | 2014 | 08/06/15 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Two reports. One guy who had no clue, the other who had good insight into our paper. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. | 2014 | 07/17/14 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | very thorough referee report, comments were mostly related to theoretical motivation, paper was submitted without much change to JFE and eventually accepted there | 2008 | 05/22/14 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | -- Divided referee reports. One was more helpful than the other. | 2013 | 02/16/14 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Fast, one useful referee report. | 2019 | 10/01/19 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Both reports are not really useful. They pointed out several issues of my paper, but they are either wrong or something that can be easily fixed. | 2020 | 09/15/20 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 12/27/12 | |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | Garbage referee report. Shame for RFS. | 2013 | 12/07/13 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | The reports were very useful and the referees seemed to have given the paper a very careful reading. Good experience! | 2020 | 11/09/20 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 1 | reviewer knew an aspect of the literature and appeared to promote his own unpublished paper under review at the same journal | 2013 | 05/22/14 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Both referees were concerned about identification, but did not suggest how to fix. | 2021 | 06/02/21 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. Editor decided based on 1 report. Comments by R1 were helpful, but 100+ days for 1 report is too long. | 2019 | 04/28/20 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 3 | 1 reviewer was clearly an expert, 2 others were less thorough than might be expected | 2013 | 05/22/14 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 2 months. No comment from the editor, | 2017 | 12/19/18 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 2 months. No comment from the editor, | 2017 | 12/19/18 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor from outside of the field (empirical corporate fin) did not think that my paper (ap theory) is interesting. His comments indicate he did not have an open arm to read introduction carefully to desk reject. | 2018 | 04/22/18 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 01/29/13 | |
| Review of Financial Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor desk rejected stating that paper (which was on the program of Top 3 conferences etc.) had no economic relevance and was not worth being sent out to a referee. Very respectless! | 2017 | 10/22/17 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 1 | Quite annoyed at this journal - AE provided verbatim the referee rejection from another submission journal from three months prior. Annoyed because all of the concerns were addressed and yet she could not be bothered to re-read the paper. Instead, she just re-sent me her rejection (from when she was a referee before). | 2019 | 05/08/19 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject in one week, some good comments from editor | 2015 | 09/23/15 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject after 2 months. No comment from the editor, | 2017 | 12/21/18 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/28/12 | |
| Review of Financial Studies | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 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. Ljunquist is pretty passive | 2014 | 05/25/14 |
| Review of Financial Studies | Desk Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | Dual submission to a conference, the submission fee is quite high. 3 months for conference decision and 2 months of journal decision. Turn down without a single line of comment in both rounds. Keep asking to submit to other conferences/journals RCFS/RAPS. Are you seriously so focusing on submission fees instead of research itself? You received a high fee, you explain at least one sentence about your decision making. | 2017 | 12/19/18 |
| Review of Income and Wealth | Pending | 5 | N/A | 2 | 2020 | 02/28/21 | |
| Review of Income and Wealth | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2010 | 01/10/13 | |
| Review of Income and Wealth | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | 2 reports were both useful | 2017 | 03/26/18 |
| Review of Income and Wealth | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Efficient. Brief comment from the editor. | 2019 | 09/23/19 |
| Review of Income and Wealth | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Not Suitable | 2016 | 08/02/16 |
| Review of Income and Wealth | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk Reject in a Week | 2016 | 09/04/16 |
| Review of Income and Wealth | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Editor gives no justification whatsoever. Very unprofessional. | 2014 | 08/28/14 |
| Review of Income and Wealth | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Not Suitable within a week | 2016 | 08/06/16 |
| Review of International Economics | Pending | 8 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 08/02/13 | |
| Review of International Economics | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | Very good referee reports. | 2011 | 01/01/13 |
| Review of International Economics | Accepted | 3 | 5 | 2 | After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. Reports were very positive, it took us 12 weeks to resubmit. But then, it took 20 weeks until we got the acceptance. First response was very good (and positive), still there was a long waiting afterwards. Overall, very positive experience. | 2014 | 02/05/15 |
| Review of International Economics | Accepted | 4 | 1 | 2 | Very efficient. Two referee reports. The editor provided one. Very helpful comment. Definitely recommend submitting to the journal. The whole process lasts less than a year from submission to acceptance. | 2019 | 05/17/20 |
| Review of International Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Quick turnaround with two okay reports. Both referees suggested papers to be cited in the literature review, which seem like their own papers. | 2015 | 09/23/15 |
| Review of International Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2021 | 03/12/22 | |
| Review of International Economics | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 1 | Initially submitted on 2 Aug, we got the rejection six month later. The Editor does appologize on the long delay saying one referee did not provide the report. Based on the comments of one more referee with few points, he rejects. Such along time frame for such a poor assessment of the paper. Not a good experience. | 2015 | 01/28/16 |
| Review of International Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Very nice editor. One ref report with extremely constructive criticisms. The other one was less so. | 2016 | 02/21/17 |
| Review of International Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | One very good report. Seems to be a fair process | 2014 | 10/03/14 |
| Review of International Economics | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 04/15/13 | |
| Review of International Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | 2012 | 02/24/13 | |
| Review of International Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2014 | 05/22/15 | |
| Review of International Economics | Desk Reject | 13 | N/A | 0 | 13 months for editor to desk reject because the paper has no empirical section | 2011 | 07/27/15 |
| Review of World Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 1 | Low quality referee report. | 2012 | 03/22/13 |
| Review of World Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Two short reports | 2012 | 11/08/13 |
| Review of World Economics | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | Terrible experience. | 2018 | 07/31/21 |
| Review of World Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | One good report, very constructive, the other one rejecting the paper | 2011 | 11/08/13 |
| Review of World Economics | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | 4 months for a desk rejection. | 2020 | 03/08/21 |
| Review of World Economics | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | 2.5 months for a desk rejection... I had to contact the Editor after 2 months of seeing no change in status on my manuscript. Worst experience ever. | 2018 | 07/09/18 |
| Small Business Economics | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | Highly constructive comments. | 2015 | 12/25/15 |
| Small Business Economics | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | One very good referee report, based on which the paper is improved significantly. The other is constructive but not as good. | 2019 | 03/14/20 |
| Small Business Economics | Accepted | 9 | 5 | 1 | 2011 | 01/07/13 | |
| Small Business Economics | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | Very good experience. Paper was long and too dispersed at first, but the managing editor (Baptista) liked it, and the reviewers asked for changes while being receptive. Got published after three rounds. The ME provided helpful comments on top of the two reviewers'. Would surely submit to it again. | 2017 | 05/15/20 |
| Small Business Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | More than 16 weeks!! The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. Secodn editor waited almost 6 weeks after receiving the referee reports. The outcome (referee rejection) was acceptable but 5 month waiting is a large waste of time! Not cool | 2018 | 08/13/18 |
| Small Business Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | 4 | 3 | 6 pages report trying to find reasons to reject, another report was copy paste from 3 previous submissions stating I dont belive your assumptions. Pretty bad experience | 2011 | 11/01/15 |
| Small Business Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | 2 | 1 | Rejected after 1st R&R. The editor picked a new (hostile) referee in the 2nd round. | 2013 | 09/10/13 |
| Small Business Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Rejected due to data limitation. 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) | 2012 | 01/08/13 |
| Small Business Economics | Desk Reject | 1 | 1 | 0 | Desk rejection would be normal, but the journal has changed dramatically the orientation towards family firms. So if your topic is not within this field, the desk rejection is much more likely. | 2015 | 03/13/16 |
| Small Business Economics | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | editor rejected in 6 days | 2012 | 01/12/13 |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Pending | 14 | N/A | 0 | 2013 | 09/17/14 | |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Pending | 0 | N/A | 0 | after more than 3 months still "with editor" | 2018 | 06/09/18 |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2010 | 01/09/13 | |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Accepted | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2008 | 08/02/13 | |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Accepted | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2011 | 02/04/13 | |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2017 | 09/06/19 | |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Accepted | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 very helpful report. 1 helpful report. Fair editor. Overall great experience. | 2017 | 09/17/18 |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Nice referees... | 2011 | 01/15/13 |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Accepted | 6 | 5 | 1 | Weird referee... | 2008 | 01/15/13 |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. Overall great experience. | 2015 | 11/23/15 |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 1 | Mostly unhelpful report filled with numerous unnecessary resentful and bitter. The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress. | 2018 | 09/12/18 |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 02/22/17 | |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 08/02/13 | |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | The paper is not of the interest of SCW readers! | 2015 | 08/17/15 |
| Social Choice and Welfare | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected within 7 days. An Associate Editor clearly read the paper. The Editor was quite polite. The paper was not a good fit for the journal and another journal was recommended. I think that's fair, since I had also suspected the paper might not be a great fit. | 2018 | 04/09/18 |
| Social Indicators Research | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2013 | 04/24/13 | |
| Social Indicators Research | Accepted | 4 | 3 | 2 | Fluent process | 2019 | 12/08/19 |
| Southern Economic Journal | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Very professional handling of the editor with very detailed comments and helpful reports. The whole process was fast and streamlined. | 2018 | 11/16/19 |
| Southern Economic Journal | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 2 | Super fast process than I had expected. One referee report was super helpful. Would choose again. | 2020 | 06/23/20 |
| Southern Economic Journal | Accepted | 5 | N/A | 2 | Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Associate editors are very professional. Great experience! | 2013 | 01/14/14 |
| Southern Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2015 | 01/19/16 | |
| Southern Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2012 | 03/26/13 | |
| Southern Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | 2010 | 12/21/12 | |
| Southern Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 12/21/12 | |
| Southern Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Mess with the submission, as they were changing editors. After pressing four times, they told me it was out for review. No way to check on status. Came back with a reject, but reports were at least somewhat useful. | 2019 | 09/11/19 |
| Southern Economic Journal | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Fast turnaround but very poor reports | 2015 | 11/11/15 |
| Southern Economic Journal | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 1 | Desk Reject in a Week but it did come with two pages of notes and questions that should help the paper. | 2016 | 09/11/16 |
| Space Policy | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 quality ref reports + brief comments by editor. Accepted w/o further revision 18 days after resubmit. I'm over the moon, great experience ! | 2017 | 03/29/18 |
| Stochastic Models | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Although I withdrew my article, editor sent me a rejection letter in a very rude manner. You can even not see these wordings in Game of Thrones. Bad experience. | 2016 | 07/09/16 |
| Stochastic Models | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 07/09/16 | |
| Strategic Behavior and the Environment | Pending | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very quick refereeing | 2014 | 01/26/15 |
| Strategic Behavior and the Environment | Accepted | 2 | 3 | 2 | High quality referee reports | 2011 | 11/28/13 |
| The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Great experience | 2017 | 09/21/18 |
| The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2017 | 09/19/18 | |
| The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Unlucky with a referee, i guess | 2017 | 08/30/17 |
| The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Some of the most useful and thorough referee reports I've gotten. Timely, informed, and critical. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. | 2016 | 11/02/16 |
| The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. | 2016 | 11/07/16 |
| The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 2 | One very constructive and positive report from economist, and one worst-I-ever-recieved report from a law scholar (maybe). The law scholar did not like technical thing but I just used. basic IV! Very disappointed at the editor who made a decision based on such a low quality report. | 2015 | 04/06/16 |
| The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | Detailed reports, 2 negative, 1 positive; nice letter from co-editor. | 2014 | 04/09/14 |
| The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2014 | 09/30/14 | |
| The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 5 weeks for a desk reject. Boilerplate "contribution not significant enough..." | 2019 | 08/08/19 |
| The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | two months pretty long for a desk reject, but can't really complain about the desk reject itself because the paper is not so great | 2014 | 07/03/14 |
| The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization | Desk Reject | 4 | N/A | 0 | Desk Reject took 4 months. Total waste of time. | 2017 | 07/09/17 |
| The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Disappointed it wasn't sent out for review, but can't fault them for speed! | 2014 | 07/28/14 |
| The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | seven weeks to say poor fit when similar and cited papers are published there. | 2020 | 02/10/21 |
| The Manchester School | Accepted | 6 | 4 | 2 | One referee seemed inexperienced and little informative comments. | 2010 | 04/29/15 |
| The Manchester School | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 1 | Really smooth process. It took 1 year from submission to acceptance, but the journal was quick, I took to long to do the revisions | 2020 | 08/12/21 |
| The World Economy | Pending | 15 | N/A | 0 | I withdraw my submission after 15 months of submission and no answer from the editor | 2013 | 09/11/14 |
| The World Economy | Pending | 8 | 1 | 0 | Withdrew my paper after 8 months of no contact from Editor, referee, etc. Very slow in responding inquiries. They never refunded my fee either. | 2015 | 07/18/16 |
| The World Economy | Pending | 1 | N/A | 0 | Submitted in 2012. Two years later still waiting for referee reports. Have emailed for status to no avail. | 2012 | 11/13/14 |
| The World Economy | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 1 | The referee had a chip on their shoulder and the editor stepped in. | 2017 | 03/23/21 |
| The World Economy | Accepted | 5 | 2 | 2 | It was a long process but the editor and referees were genuinely helpful. | 2017 | 07/19/18 |
| The World Economy | Accepted | 12 | 12 | 0 | Slow as hell | 2018 | 08/15/20 |
| The World Economy | Accepted | 5 | 1 | 1 | The first revision took around 5 months. After that, the R&R only took 10 days and we also tackled a minor comment from the editor. Kneller is a very good editor, the experience has been very good. | 2018 | 07/25/18 |
| The World Economy | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 2 | Fair process. One reviewer asking for minor revisions, the other clearly reject the paper. In the end, the editor reject the article | 2011 | 05/01/14 |
| The World Economy | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Referee comments were pretty minor. I am surprised no R&R. | 2014 | 10/23/14 |
| The World Economy | Ref Reject | 20 | N/A | 0 | Emailed every six months never to any response. One paragraph report when decision finally made. Milner's an emeritus, what else does he have to do? Terrible to treat junior people this way. | 2019 | 05/06/20 |
| The World Economy | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 1 | Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. Editor decided to reject because he could only find one person to review. Seems like a sound reason. | 2015 | 12/23/15 |
| The World Economy | Ref Reject | 15 | N/A | 1 | Terribly run journal. NEVER submit there if you are pre-tenured. They will not respond to editorial office inquiries or direct emails to the editors. This is why our profession sucks. | 2019 | 06/20/20 |
| Theoretical Economics | Accepted | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2/3 ref reports were detailed and useful. The co-editor gave very specific, though difficult requests for the revision. | 2015 | 06/28/16 |
| Theoretical Economics | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 3 | Very efficient journal, 3 very helpful reports from a coeditor and 2 referees. | 2021 | 02/20/22 |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2011 | 01/10/13 | |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 1 very good referee report, 1 completely useless | 2013 | 12/21/13 |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 1 | one helpful report. fair enough. | 2014 | 10/06/15 |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very fast. One excellent referee report, one terrible. AE also helpful. | 2013 | 05/23/13 |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2013 | 11/22/13 | |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Both referees were a bit too negative, but the reports were useful. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. | 2020 | 10/19/20 |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | 2/2 referee reports were positive and suggested R&R because the contribution was significant enough. The editor rejected it though. | 2017 | 12/22/17 |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal. | 2010 | 01/29/13 |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Very quick response. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. Will submit again. | 2018 | 06/21/20 |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | two good one bad report | 2012 | 01/13/13 |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 1 | Terribly disappointing experience. Osbourne rejected following a 6-7 line bs report by adding his own very cheap comments. We thought we'd receive useful reports even if we got rejected, but this turned out to be a total waste of time. | 2012 | 12/07/13 |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Overall good experience. One referee recommended R&R, the other recommended rejection based on insufficient contribution. The latter may be fine but it is clear that the referee did not read the paper very carefully. The AE's letter was useful, although no suggestion what to try next. | 2021 | 06/24/21 |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | One somewhat elaborated report. 2nd very short and useless, referee probably spent 10 mins on it. | 2020 | 11/23/20 |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 2012 | 01/21/13 | |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 3 | Efficient journal and good reports | 2012 | 06/03/13 |
| Theoretical Economics | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Very good referee reports and useful suggestions from the AE | 2015 | 01/16/16 |
| Urban Studies | Accepted | 7 | 6 | 3 | 2011 | 12/23/12 | |
| Urban Studies | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 3 | Very bad reports. Referees didn't read the article properly! | 2014 | 08/15/14 |
| Urban Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 5 | Terrible reports, but quick. | 2014 | 06/21/14 |
| Urban Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | Clearly there were 2 initial refs: 1 suggested R&R, the other suggested rejection. At least they gave decent feedback. The editor brought in a tie breaker 3rd, who wrote a very terse reject. | 2019 | 09/21/20 |
| Urban Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 5 | Terrible reports, but quick. | 2014 | 06/21/14 |
| Urban Studies | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 5 | Terrible reports, but quick. | 2014 | 06/21/14 |
| World Bank Economic Review | Pending | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2020 | 04/27/20 | |
| World Bank Economic Review | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 3 | Very good reports, very effective handling of the editor | 2017 | 12/27/18 |
| World Bank Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | Referees lukewarm, Foster took time and effort to explain his decision, also indicated a number of pathways to strengthen the paper. Good experience. | 2014 | 10/09/14 |
| World Bank Economic Review | Ref Reject | 1 | N/A | 2 | 2018 | 11/02/18 | |
| World Bank Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2018 | 11/02/18 | |
| World Bank Economic Review | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | 2 referee reports. One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. The editor decided to reject, I am not in the club. | 2015 | 02/14/16 |
| World Bank Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2018 | 06/06/18 | |
| World Bank Economic Review | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 0 | 5 months before the editor could take the time to look at the paper. Then the referee gave their answer in 2 weeks. Referees rejected the paper or asked for major revisions. Helpful and honest reviews | 2015 | 09/15/15 |
| World Bank Economic Review | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 2 | 2015 | 09/15/15 | |
| World Bank Economic Review | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 3 | Good Experience. Fast reviews with reasonable comments. | 2017 | 08/01/17 |
| World Bank Economic Review | Ref Reject | 2 | N/A | 3 | 2017 | 09/10/19 | |
| World Bank Economic Review | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2014 | 08/14/14 | |
| World Bank Economic Review | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | The editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions. | 2015 | 06/30/15 |
| World Bank Economic Review | Desk Reject | 4 | 5 | 3 | WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). WBER changes editor and the new editor (Pavcnik) reject the paper. She said only 1 (very short but with no objections) of 3 of the referees responded and was not able to find new referees. Reviewing all the documents, she does not like the paper: rejection with 800 words of blabla. Serious ppl from top journals can always surprise you... | 2016 | 02/05/17 |
| World Bank Economic Review | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Useful comments from editor | 2014 | 12/02/14 |
| World Development | Pending | 7 | N/A | 0 | 2015 | 09/15/15 | |
| World Development | Accepted | 3 | 1 | 2 | Quick process, nice editor. | 2013 | 04/28/14 |
| World Development | Accepted | 10 | 5 | 2 | Accepted after first round | 2013 | 03/15/14 |
| World Development | Accepted | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2014 | 02/02/15 | |
| World Development | Accepted | 8 | 1 | 3 | Took a long time for first response which suggested feasible changes and asked for a revised submission. After resubmitting, accepted in 2 weeks without going to referees. Moderately useful reports. | 2011 | 12/04/13 |
| World Development | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 ok ref report, 1 low-quality | 2014 | 09/09/15 |
| World Development | Accepted | 2 | 1 | 2 | Very quick handeling, decent reports. A very good experience. | 2021 | 08/10/21 |
| World Development | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 3 | Long time to edit and format after acceptance. Good ref reports. Nice editor. | 2012 | 01/15/13 |
| World Development | Accepted | 3 | 2 | 3 | paper proposed theory that is quite a substantial departure, so i appreciate the editor's willing to take it on. reviews were helpful, required a month's solid work to revise. | 2014 | 11/27/16 |
| World Development | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 2 | Nice process and outcome. Quick to online first. | 2017 | 06/15/18 |
| World Development | Accepted | 3 | 5 | 3 | 2013 | 06/10/14 | |
| World Development | Accepted | 3 | 7 | 2 | a bit slow but with high quality reviews | 2016 | 04/11/17 |
| World Development | Accepted | 6 | 4 | 3 | relatively high quality referee reports, huge amount of work needed to format the paper according to the editorial guidelines as they receive little typesetting support from publisher. | 2011 | 01/06/13 |
| World Development | Accepted | 4 | 4 | 2 | Useful reports, pleasant experience overall | 2014 | 01/21/16 |
| World Development | Accepted | 7 | 3 | 3 | 2011 | 12/22/12 | |
| World Development | Accepted | 5 | 4 | 3 | Good experience overall. 1 very good referee report, 1 OK, 1 pretty bad (revealing that the referee was clearly a non-economist). Modifications responded mainly to the good report. Editor accepted it. | 2015 | 03/04/16 |
| World Development | Accepted | 6 | 1 | 2 | Surprisingly efficient process given the other comments here on the journal. Also good editing support. | 2013 | 03/11/14 |
| World Development | Accepted | 6 | 3 | 3 | Reports were sound and improved the paper substantially. Referee process could be streamlined (take too long), but overall a good experience. Would submit again. | 2018 | 01/16/19 |
| World Development | Accepted | 3 | 4 | 3 | Very positive experience. Editor and editorial staff excellent. Extremely constructive and useful comments, clearly from people from diverse backgrounds who engaged deeply with the paper (2 economists, 1 polsci). Recommend. | 2014 | 08/26/15 |
| World Development | Accepted | 12 | 1 | 4 | One very good report; three okay. | 2011 | 01/07/13 |
| World Development | Accepted | 3 | 3 | 3 | useful reports and pretty quick response | 2012 | 11/26/13 |
| World Development | Accepted | 11 | 3 | 2 | 2017 | 09/10/19 | |
| World Development | Accepted | 4 | 2 | 2 | Very smooth process. Referees mostly wanted me to provide more background and a deeper policy discussion. | 2019 | 09/10/19 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 2 | 2 poor quality reports after 8 months of being under review | 2019 | 08/23/20 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 3 | two referees with constructive comments, one referee rather negative and no substantial comment. paper rejected after one round of R&R due to extremely negative attitude of the one referee. editor is dumber than a second coat of paint. | 2015 | 04/19/16 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 8 | N/A | 3 | WD has become a true shitshow. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. Also, reviewers are non-economists, providing some real WTF comments. Will never submit unless the editor is changed to an economist | 2016 | 08/09/16 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | Referees did not put much efforts. 10 lines... not even sure they read the paper | 2017 | 12/20/17 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 3 | Fair decision. Two helpful reports. One very low quality. Nice words from the editor. | 2015 | 03/04/17 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Good reports. | 2014 | 01/28/15 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | 9 wasted months. Terribly run journal. | 2016 | 12/09/17 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 6 | N/A | 3 | One excellent and positive report. One is OK, other one is exteremly negative. | 2014 | 10/25/14 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 7 | N/A | 2 | One of the worst experience I have ever had. Got two most useless reports ever. The editor, not having confidence in the reports, decided to reject, I believe. Bad experience with both the referee reports and the editor | 2015 | 11/27/15 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 9 | N/A | 2 | 9 wasted months. Terribly run journal. | 2016 | 12/09/17 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 5 | 5 | 1 | Single RR, Editor said couldn't find a second reviewer. RR was done with care and useful overall | 2020 | 06/08/21 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 3 | N/A | 2 | The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. Two useful referee reports at the end of the third month. In hindsight, submitted the paper too prematurely. But the comments helped. | 2019 | 04/12/21 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 4 | N/A | 3 | Decent reports. | 2016 | 10/17/16 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 5 | N/A | 3 | 1 good, 1 okay and one bad review. Extensive reviews though. Some feasible and some not feasible suggestions. Overall I feel paper rejected because of third negative review. | 2014 | 05/01/15 |
| World Development | Ref Reject | 3 | 3 | 3 | Rejected after two rounds of R&R | 2014 | 12/20/14 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 13 | N/A | 0 | It took them 13 months to tell us that the article was better suitable for a different journal | 2014 | 02/29/16 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Generic desk reject after 2 weeks | 2021 | 05/06/21 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2 weeks | 2016 | 05/24/16 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Generic Desk Reject. | 2015 | 11/07/15 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Generic Desk Reject - Fortunately they only took 2 days | 2017 | 12/11/17 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Editor suggested that paper was better suited for JDE (LOL). | 2016 | 03/22/17 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | Submitted in the covid special issue. Co editor rejected it. Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. Horrible experience. | 2020 | 03/14/21 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in a week | 2013 | 06/06/13 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2016 | 12/09/17 | |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 5 | N/A | 0 | 5 weeks for desk rejection is too much | 2016 | 03/24/17 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 4 weeks for desk rejection is too much. Editor says "..his delay is mainly the result of needing to get a second editorial assessment which suggested this paper's arguments are less likely to find a responsive audience in our journal's readership". Bugaga!!! | 2016 | 04/02/17 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejected in a few days. | 2015 | 06/30/15 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 4 Weeks to Desk Reject | 2018 | 08/27/18 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Horrible editorial process. Editor didn't even read the paper and rejected it. May be I need to take a club membership to get published there. Avoid at all costs. | 2019 | 03/14/21 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 2012 | 12/21/12 | |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 1 Month and 10 days for first decision is too long. Editor mentioned delay is mainly the result of needing to get a second editorial assessment which suggested this paper's arguments are more likely to find a responsive audience in a different journal. Not helpful in any way. | 2019 | 09/02/19 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk Rejected in 10 Days | 2012 | 12/22/12 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | 17 days Desk Reject | 2019 | 09/02/19 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 1 months for desk reject. Avoid if possible. | 2021 | 03/10/21 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Ignored reputation of this journal being a small closed network (mostly WB) journal. Proved to be quite true. | 2014 | 08/16/15 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Quick rejection. Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days. | 2013 | 01/29/15 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk reject within 2 weeks | 2018 | 10/15/18 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 1 | N/A | 0 | 1 month (Desk Reject) | 2018 | 08/29/18 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 2 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection (standard email). However, it was relatively fast at least. | 2020 | 02/04/21 |
| World Development | Desk Reject | 0 | N/A | 0 | Desk rejection in 1 week. | 2018 | 07/02/18 |