OK, but I've never had a paper turned around in less than 6 months (and
often it has taken up to a year) at any journal except the QJE. Also,
you can't divide time to publish by 3 since most of the time there is
only 1 revise and resubmit and in my experience more papers are accepted
on the first
friend had a paper go three rounds at AER and that took 3 years. I
wouldn't be surprised if a lot of bad papers get rejected quickly and
that would bring down the average turn around time a lot.
That is indeed the case. Journals get many papers of low quality, and it's
easy to reject the bad
In a message dated 10/15/02 11:54:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While there is a lot of nutty stuff in academia
Does that mean there are many nutty professors? I thought there were only
two--Jerry Lewis and Eddie Murphy. :) If there are many, how could we model
the market for them?
of advice.
Bill Sjostrom
- Original Message -
From: Robson, Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:07 AM
Subject: RE: Journal response times
Fabio Rojas wrote:
I'd say economics has a pretty decent turn around time.
The following are data from
Robson, Alex wrote:
The data are average times (measured in months)
between initial submission and acceptance at various
economics journals in the year 1999.
It seems that the long times quoted in this article
are something different than what fabio was talking
about. I have not read the
The data are average times (measured in months)
between initial submission and acceptance at various
economics journals in the year 1999.
It seems that the long times quoted in this article
are something different than what fabio was talking
about. I have not read the article but the
Fabio Rojas wrote:
I'd say economics has a pretty decent turn around time.
The following are data from a recent paper by Glenn Ellison of MIT (JPE, October
2002). The data are average times (measured in months) between initial submission and
acceptance at various economics journals in the
