Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 151.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
I submitted my manuscript on 8 May 2026. On 11 August, after 95 days, the coordinating editor requested straightforward reference and formatting corrections before external review. No substantive scientific revisions were requested. I submitted the corrected manuscript and a point-by-point response the following day, on 12 August.
An email inquiring about the status of the review sent on 9 September remained unanswered as of 6 October. The manuscript remained at “Editor Assigned” until the status changed to “Editor Invited,” dated 5 October.
On 6 October, nearly five months after the original submission and almost eight weeks after resubmission, I requested withdrawal. At that point, external peer review had not been confirmed, and I had received no explanation of the delay. Withdrawal confirmation is pending at the time of writing.
The requested corrections were clearly specified and straightforward to implement. However, the prolonged editorial processing and lack of a response to my status inquiry led me to seek another journal.
An email inquiring about the status of the review sent on 9 September remained unanswered as of 6 October. The manuscript remained at “Editor Assigned” until the status changed to “Editor Invited,” dated 5 October.
On 6 October, nearly five months after the original submission and almost eight weeks after resubmission, I requested withdrawal. At that point, external peer review had not been confirmed, and I had received no explanation of the delay. Withdrawal confirmation is pending at the time of writing.
The requested corrections were clearly specified and straightforward to implement. However, the prolonged editorial processing and lack of a response to my status inquiry led me to seek another journal.
n/a
n/a
79 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
I am honestly disappointed with the editorial handling of my manuscript at Empirical Economics. The decision took a long time, from late March to mid-June, yet the final explanation was quite brief and not fully convincing.
What I find frustrating is that the rejection appears to be based mainly on the argument that the manuscript does not introduce a new econometric technique. However, Empirical Economics is, by its name and scope, a journal associated with empirical research. If the journal gives priority mainly to methodological innovation, this expectation should be communicated more clearly to authors before submission.
I also find the reference to the journal retaining less than 5% of submitted papers unsatisfactory as an explanation. A low acceptance rate should not replace a transparent and detailed assessment of the manuscript’s academic merits.
Overall, the process felt slow, not very transparent, and somewhat inconsistent with what I would reasonably expect from a journal in empirical economics.
What I find frustrating is that the rejection appears to be based mainly on the argument that the manuscript does not introduce a new econometric technique. However, Empirical Economics is, by its name and scope, a journal associated with empirical research. If the journal gives priority mainly to methodological innovation, this expectation should be communicated more clearly to authors before submission.
I also find the reference to the journal retaining less than 5% of submitted papers unsatisfactory as an explanation. A low acceptance rate should not replace a transparent and detailed assessment of the manuscript’s academic merits.
Overall, the process felt slow, not very transparent, and somewhat inconsistent with what I would reasonably expect from a journal in empirical economics.
14.6 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
15.1 weeks
35.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
This is not my first experience with this journal. Four years ago an editor rejected my journal based on a referee report concerning SOMEONE ELSE'S paper. When I complained he apologized and told me to wait. Three months later I got a rejection again based on a different referee report concerning somebody ELSE'S manuscript again.
This time the paper was simply rejected because it contained no empirical part. However, I can cite several papers in this same journal where the published papers contained no empirical either.
Interestingly, in both cases my paper was handled by the same editor. I doubt if I will ever submit my paper to this journal again.
This time the paper was simply rejected because it contained no empirical part. However, I can cite several papers in this same journal where the published papers contained no empirical either.
Interestingly, in both cases my paper was handled by the same editor. I doubt if I will ever submit my paper to this journal again.
78.0 weeks
111.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The paper was simply not forwarded for months. After a year we had to ask twice until we got an answer and the paper was forwarded to reviewers.
n/a
n/a
58 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Editorial rejection took too long (about two months).