Just a one-paragraph report saying that the results are not "novel". Editor provided a letter with comments. bad reports, of the type "i don't like it". Referee report useless. Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us. Editor rejected. Also useful comments from the editor. professional. Editor (Voth) was polite but did not say much. Transfer from another Elsevier journal. writing? 3 constructive and useful reports. He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. Quality suggestions from all three reports & editor. A lot to revise, but editor gave only 2 months. Referee really helped me to improve this paper with a great report. reject after 3 months. It publishes short accounts of new original research and encourages discussion of papers previously published in its two companion journals. Very constructive comments from Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) and referees. Fast turnaround. Journal is basically a scam now. Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. Nice experience. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal. It took me a lot of time to deal with unqualified comments. One decent, the other sloppy. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. Katz voted to reject. I waited six weeks for an inaccurate, one paragraph referee report? Efficient. Way too slow though. I love this journal. paper took over a month to get desk rejected because of problems with elsevier system. Referee report transformed the paper significantly. Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. Controversial journal. 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, Very disappointing. Currently in R&R. What a terrible journal. Two good reports. Not very helpful reports. quick and clear communication with editor. 2 mildly positive reviews, editor shot it down, Three high quality referee reports. Poor experience, will not submit again. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. Despite being so tough, all comments were fair and refs wrote great reports that dramatically improved the paper. 1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals. Very slow and no much reason given for desk rejection. Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees. Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. Very helpful letter from a referee and a coeditor. Desk rejected within a week. Very useful comments. Highly recommended. 10 month without any reaction from the editor. Strong and professional editors! Put simply; applied economics is the study of observing how theories work in practice. The paper got rejected anyways. Referee didn't think the contribution is significant enough, so straight reject. 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. I want my money back ! The referee reports were crap (minor points without really saying anything about the research question, the methodology and the results of the paper). The editor did not read the paper and just sided with the hostile referee. It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Negative report is pretty bad. Ref reports were okay. Yep, it is. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. reports: 1 ridiculous, 1 useless, 1 useful, 6 months from initial submission to acceptance. Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help. I will submit again to this rising journal, high level and very helpful referee reports. Serious referee report, but without any helpful particular suggestion. Fair decision. Applied Economics Letters Review Speed, Peer-Review Duration, Time from Submission to 1st Editorial/Reviewer Decision & Time from Submission to Acceptance/Publication. Very tough journal with very extensive comments from 3 refs. referees said "nice but not great". The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. There is only one report called review number 2! Both have suggestions (one extensive, one less so). But then, it took 20 weeks until we got the acceptance. Learn how the World Bank Group is helping countries with COVID-19 (coronavirus). Not cool, 6 pages report trying to find reasons to reject, another report was copy paste from 3 previous submissions stating I dont belive your assumptions. 4 months for ref. Despite disappointing turnout, reports were good with useful and specific suggestions on ways to improve the paper. Mean and non-sense comments from one referee so that the editor had to apologize. Paper was accepted in 1 month after the submission. Very smooth process. Editor is losing it. I don't know what to add. But at least it was quick. One referee report was fine. 1 insanely negative liquid poop all over my paper, most of it provably wrong. Very good experience. No feedback from handling editor, No refund. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. Which editor handles the paper mattered. This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. Editor decided to not even send the revised paper back to the referees. 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. Stay away from this journal if you do not have a connection from inside. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Our journal Q&As with QJE and WBER have also contained some information on this. This was back when Bill Evans was editor. I haven't received the first response yet. Average Quality R-Reports, one missed one has good comments. Kind words by editor, though weird reasoning, less than 2 weeks, recommended field journal. Cantillon is not a good editor. very thorough with helpful suggestions for revision. ... no email is sent and no decision made. Desk rejected in 10 days because the editor wasn't a fan of the data. Decision was made in 45 days. Very fast process, that is why I submitted to the journal. Admittedly, they must receive a lot of submissions, but that does not excuse this. 1 report half page long. took 5 months. Clearly done day before deadline. Not so much from the Associate Editor. Katz was encouraging. Perhaps the worst experience ever. One where the only material comment has a grammatical error that makes understanding it difficult? Very efficient editorial process by Ken West. Good experience, even though a reject. Poor / no justification for decision. actually submitted in 2017; desk rejection after 1 week; short and friendly answer of editor; however inconclusive, desk reject after three months... editor claimed they did not publish papers on this topic but they bogh b, editoral. Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees, Very bad reports from non economists. 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. the journal is recovering.
Robot Modeling And Control Spong Solutions Pdf, Ns-rtm18ss7 Ice Maker, Homemade Smoker Ideas, How To Make Grilled Cheese Without Butter, Aldi Rum Cake, Temperature Of Birgunj, French Tomato Galette, Ambrosia Cake Recipe Pineapple,