Ron Dale Obituary, How To Measure Scalar Energy, Articles E

Reasonable response. Accepted once I satisfied the referees. Liran Einav 650-723-3704 leinav@stanford.edu. Robert J. Barro desk rejected the paper in less than 24 hours. Very efficient editorial process by Ken West. Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. the? That sounds fair to me. One report useless, read only the first quarter of the paper. Six weeks for a desk reject with no reasons offered, Under editor's evaluation for almost 2 months. One was more helpful than the other. Galor and the referees felt the contribution wasn't substantial enough. Accepted version was greatly improved. Only have issues with one of the reviewers. editor obviously read the paper (indicated by reference to appendix figure in the letter); nice and helpful comments. short straightforward paper, should take max 2 hours to read carefully,still under review, editor (Hall) non-responsive, waiting 30 months for response, editor not responding to inquiries. Desk rejected in 3 days. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. Waste of the submission fee. Useless reports. Walmart has announced it will permanently close all its locations in reports. One positive review, one negative, referee took the side of the negative. Not helpful in any way. The editor does not respond to emails. No value for such a high submission fee. Won't be doing that again 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. The discussant in the shitty conf gives better comments. 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). The new editor (Leeat Yariv) did a great job: She indeed read the paper and gave constructive comments. Other referee hadn't read the paper at all. Contribution too small. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. Not recommended. Rejected by referee after 10 months citing lack of novelty. Very long time to receive the first decision (major revision). The other one was less so. Unfair decision. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again, Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees. Good comments from the editor. Disappointing as paper got some fine ref reports in another top journal and revised.