I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. extremely slow. Good reports. Helpful comments from reviewer and editor. Desk rejected in 2 days. 1 report, minor issues, rejected. Editor claimed that referee is an expert in the field. One very good and helpful report. Minor changes, though. Desk reject for paper being too narrow for the audience of the journal. one referee pointed to their own working paper which is still not published (jan 2017), Positive: 1 high quality referee report and some comments by the co-editor; Negative: 2 other referee reports of medium to very low quality. Fair editor. There was no mistake. However, my paper is abotu China and Institutions, two things strongly encouragede according to their mission statement. Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. One referee said "take it", two said "we dislike coauthor, he published something similar in psych journal, do not take". Overall horrifying experience. You needed 2 months to tell me that? Reasonable comments from the referee, extremely fast and efficient process. Not a good fit! Giles is a great editor. Excellent and detailed report, fair decision. Long and bad reviewing process. Got desk reject within 2 weeks. Terrible experience. Desk reject within 1 day. However, once the paper was assigned to referees, the speed was normal. Quickly accepted after the revisions were completed. 2-pages report, few suggestions. Good experience, Referees on the fence, rejection because editor does not like topic. Complete waste of time!! Probably just a grad student who could only understand calculations. The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. several days. Editor rejected on the basis of being too narrow. Reject. Also useful comments from the editor. I submitted in July, and then they sent the response back in October. The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. Well argued rejection with helpful comments. Within a week, Laura Schechter clearly went through the paper and give it a thought with a couple of helpfull comments. . Disappointed. low quality and very short referee report Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text. oh they're good! Fast editorial process. useless report from "expert" regurgitating my explicitly stated caveats, B.E. is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? Editor wrote another helpful report as well. Avoid at all cost. Very good reports. Received 1st response within a month with a very helpful referee report. useless reports. Great experience. Even disappointing outcome, three constructive reports, one of them extremely helpful. This would be fine if desk-reject was motivated by "not a good fit" or such. Use widely accepted methods. Reports were sound and improved the paper substantially. Withdrew paper after one year without signs of life. A complete discrage. To be fair, some of the editors comments were sharp. Editor had different opinion. Departament | Facultat d'Economia i Empresa - Job Market Candidates Expected better from an AEJ. If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not). Poorly managed journal. Positive feedback from the editor. Secondary: Applied Macroeconomics and International Economics. Will submit here again. Revise and resubmit. 4 weeks for first response. very disappointing. Long time to first response, given 3 months for a lengthy (single) report, but resubmitted and was accepted in like 3 hours. Three reports, two reports are with doable suggestions, one is low-quality. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative. Very professional way of handling the process, Very helpful report which has permitted to increase the quality of the paper. The initial resposen took too long (almost 4 moth to be sent our to referees). Editor obviously read the paper. No complains. Pretty terrible experience. Worthless garbage report, no redeeming value. Awful experience. highly unprofessional, the report is not useful, comments make little sense and contradict to the extant literature on the topic. Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports. Very fast process. What a joke! Editor: "Far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal". This is expected as I am not part of the editor's inner circle. Reject based on a priori feeling of the reviewer with no scientific arguments but rather personal perception of her/his reading. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. Katz rejected in two hours with comments that seemed to be written for some other paper. One paragraph with comments. Mildly positive referees but reject nonetheless. Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. Fast turnaround, I'm very happy with the experience. Very useful comments. At least was fast at just over two months. OK report. The paper is accepted in another journal now. Editor very sympathetic, but rejected. Good experience overall, took more than 1 year to get one referee report. Not so much from the Associate Editor. Reasonable referee report. 100 days for 2 useless reports showing lack of understanding of whats going on in the paper, Nice and quick, but bad experience. Two excellent referee reports. One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. Reject because aparently would not fit in their journal. Stay away from JAE. For the fee would have been nice if the Editor had written a paragraph about why they rejected. Waste of submission fee. Actually submitted in 2017 (wiki not updated yet). We have done that, after several weeks, no answer. Modifications responded mainly to the good report. I then spent 2+ months revising, only to be rejected (after another two months), no new reports, but detailed comments from the editor. Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. 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. Worked butt off to respond to them. Overall great experience. Could've desk-rejected instead of two useless referee reports. 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. The editor, one AE and some referees (in the first stage there was only one, completely irrelevant) have insulted my intelligence. Quite fast I'd say, but comments were simple. Vastly improved the paper but had to submit elsewhere. The referee's main criticism was like "they argued that A is the main point, which is weak. Not a fit to the journal! Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. Comments didn't make sense. 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). It has had it uses as a source of gossip but it accumulated the worst of any group of mostly 20 something American men. My paper was in "submitted" status for almost 5 months when made a query. 1 other report was relatively valid, although did not read carefully. Don't submit if not in the right zipcode. One referee report was very detailed. Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. 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. Fast desk reject. Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. Decent reports. The rejection came with a useless referee report. Editor read/scanned desk rejected paper. Either way, unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. The paper got rejected anyways. Two rounds of R&R! Outcome was positive in the end, but I had to follow some nonsense instructions from the referees and the editor. 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). Advisors: Robert Seamans (Chair), Gino Cattani, Sinziana Dorobantu, Arun Sundararajan. Editor (Taylor) gave additional advice. Special call. Accepted 3 days after resub even though the initial decision was RR with 'major revisions'. Other referee reports are okay, not very useful. European Review of Agricultural Economics. Useful reports, pleasant experience overall. Editor read paper and gave good comments, but ultimately rejected. 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. Welcome to the Academic Jobs Wiki. 3 detailed reports, and a summary from Hendren explaining the rejection. Reason for rejection was editor thought paper belonged in `less selective' journal. Fast. said it was a matter of fit. one week to accepted with minor changes. Meaningless reviews. 1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. Not very fast but good in overall. 10 lines not even sure they read the paper. They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. Editor made some quick comments and recommended 3 journals a tier below. Faculty of Economics Austin . The paper is a solid analysis but does not sufficiently add to our understanding. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. Currently in R&R. Absolutely pathetic. Efficient and fair. Avoid at all costs, International Review of Economics and Finance. Getting a reference to AEJ Applied was worth it. The editor is responsive. One nice and one not nice referee. After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. The contribution of the paper is not enough for EL!