So-so report. This is the letter I sent to the editor of JME: Laughable report (where do they find these clueless idiots?). Editor clearly read the paper, sent a long email telling me how much he liked it but that it would likely run into trouble with referees. Decent referee reports. After the second round R&R, I only had to deal with the long reviewer. Useless comments. Some good comments though. The policy of the journal is to let each author appoint the referees, which improves speed on one hand but generates citation groups on the other hand. editing team is real class act. Disappointed with the result, but the experience was okay. This journal is a scam. Faster than I expected given horror stories i have heard here and elsewhere, and with good comments from refs and editor. 1 R was for R&R, another for weak R&R, another for reject. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! Quick handling, competent (positive) reports. Bad experience waiting for and ultimately receiving two relatively useless reviews for a comment/note (paper < 10 pages including title/abstract page, references, and tables). The reviews were short and gave some good feedback. It just decided not to believe the empirical analysis. 2 straightforward reports with fair criticism. After 6 months I got three good reports. Wasted months of work. The first response took more than I expected, but the referee's comment was very constructive. Got accepted after a week. The editor rejected after 12 months mentioning 4 referee reports. Will never submit here again. Really unprofessional. Very good reports. Lowest quality referee reports ever received. I appreciate the quick desk reject. The editor did not even get that the comments were wrong. Great editor who was great at handling the process and chasing referees. Editor delayed a lot. After revision, paper accepted in a week. Avoid if you can. it.?I? It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. High quality, detailed ref. 2 months after first submission of manuscript. Improved the paper significantly. Very efficient process. Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. Mentioned but did not provide reports, just asked for a more policy oriented conclusion, unresponsive to emails. After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected. The referees loved it, very positive comments. Clearly the paper was not good enough for the JIE. Bad experience. Desk-rejected after one week without any substantial or specific comment, apart recommending to submit to a specialist journal. Good experience, strong feedback. The referee reports were also awful. 1 report half page long. Says model's too complex then suggests an addition which would have tripled the state space. Very quick and professional editing. Quick with two decent reports. Referee reports were modestly helpful, though there was very little overlap between what the referees commented on. A fairly high quality report, useful, within 24 days. I believe that if that is the reason it could have been desk rejected. Two referees, two weak R&Rs, editor rejects despite the recommendations of referees. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Useful reports. Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. Was not worth waiting that long (this is an understatement). Job Description Linkedin.com. Articles/sites of interest for students on the Job Market. Wonderful experience overall. The editor (George Weebly) made inconsistent statements that did not match with the statments in the paper or from the refrees.The referees made good comments. The editor clearly had a look at least at the introduction and gave encouraging comments. Editor clearly asked some half-literate grad student to write a negative review. I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; 04 May Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO) Fast decision after resubmit. The referee report was very poor.
Managing the academic job market - Chris Blattman Applying for academic jobs. I thought that I deserved more respect. Overall decent and professional expert reports. The editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions. 10 lines not even sure they read the paper. 6 months was a lot to wait for one good report though Good feedback. Very poor experience. Best experience in a long time. The lack of referee reports makes me think it is the latter. Invited to revise and resubmit the paper. Other two reports are fine, although one other also did not read a section, s/he says. This journal is a bit hell to make it attractive to authors in order to get their money easily. One good report, one bad report. be viewed as too specific. They did not send an offer last year either. Taburet (LSE), Leombroni (Stanford), Puglisi (Northwestern), Wangner (TSE), Qiu (Pennsylvania), Morazzoni (UPF), Charles (USC), Hurtado (Chicago Booth), Nord (EUI), van der Beck (Lausanne), Monteiro (Northwestern), Gutierrez (Chicago), Senior Economist (Forecasting and Policy Modelling). I resubmitted in January, and the paper was accepted with minor revisions in March. Terrible, very short referee reports. The paper was not sent to the referee but instead the editor said it was reviewed by the editorial board. The paper is mostly empirical and they asked for massive extension of the dataset. Clearly he had read the paper. 5 days. This journal is a scam! Otherwise, efficient process, decent reports. One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. 2 very good reports and one poor report. HUMAN HELP: The Placement Chair for the 2022-2023 academic year is Professor Ben Handel, handel@berkeley.edu. 2 very short reports after waiting 11 months and paying a crazy submission fee. Desk reject in a few days. One report very useful, and the other two not that much. Worst experience so far. reviewer reports were okay, but the process took so long. One referee with very helpful reports. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Thorough review. Lousy reports showing lack of proper reading. Fair referee reports, ref. Two weak reports. Overall a very nice experience. quick turnaround and helpful referee report. Almost 8 months to acceptance, despite Revised version submitted after 5months. The editor is very good with excellent referee reports. 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. 1 month for R&R, 1 week for acceptance after revision submitted. Standard experience with the JHR. Handling editor still rejects for unclear reasons; very frustrating, but at least fairly timely. One very good and helpful report. extremely long wait, and a really poor referee report. Department of Geography. Almost two months for desk reject, no submission refund. Editor is very efficient and professional. He gave thoughtful comments about how to better target elsewhere. After seven month the co-editor rejects the paper based on a report which is terrible. No other comments. Editor suggested that paper was better suited for JDE (LOL). Editor reject due to relevance. placement@econ.ucla.edu. Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. 3 months for a desk rejection - no need to comment 4 months until desk reject. Manuscript number assigned at 10AM, rejected by 7PM. Fair and useful comment by the editor. No complaints. SHAME on you. Worst. 1 insanely negative liquid poop all over my paper, most of it provably wrong. This was high risk but of course at the end worth it because it is a good journal. People need filters. Referee comments were pretty minor. Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response. The editor did point out a couple of interesting things. Excellent reports. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee. The referees should be (far) better than the illiterate idiot they gave me! Basically, just a short e-mail saying that it cannot be accepted and it is more suited to some other types of Journals. 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. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about. The paper was accepted quickly after revision. 2 reports and 2 rounds. I didn't expect an accept here, but I def did not expect to be rejected on the grounds of such poor review reports. Two month later it is rejected and get two referee reports (fair enough there). relatively fast, but referees totally uninformed of the literature. Coming off of a failed R&R at a higher ranked journal. Super fast handling by Pro. He suggested a general interest journal. However we had make all of the referee's suggestions and the outcome was not positive. Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. Referees basically thought contribution was too small to merit publishing. Co editor rejected it. You received a high fee, you explain at least one sentence about your decision making. In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. No specific comment from the editor. Three short reports. Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever. Will submit here again. Long wait but not a bad experience overall, referee comments were useful. Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days. Longish time to first response but good reports and a ref who just loved digging into my equations. If you want a fair treatment - stay away from this journal. highly unprofessional, the report is not useful, comments make little sense and contradict to the extant literature on the topic. Good experience overall, only took 2 weeks, two short reports, one very useful. Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. Duke University. Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. In December 2016 we managed to get a reply from the managing editor with the same story, that the decision was a matter of days. Desk reject in two days for not being general enough, $132 fee not refunded. 1 reject and 1 R&R. Some useful comments, most misreads and poor understanding of model. Bradshaw AdvisoryLondon/Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds - UK. One very constructive and positive report from economist, and one worst-I-ever-recieved report from a law scholar (maybe). Fast but shallow. The co-editor was very efficient and apparently read the paper. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. Only one referee report in 11 months? So despite I got a rejection, the experience is actually not that bad. The editor was not helpful at all. Unfortunately the editor decides to reject the paper on the last round because he has concern about the paper. Both referees recommended revise and resubmit but the editor came up with a nonsensical reason to reject the paper. extremely slow. Co-editor felt nothing "wrong" with paper but does not made enough of a contribution to warrant publication. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. No input from editor either.
Economics Job Market Rumors - Forum for Economists I only regret not withdrawing this. A bit long but very helpful referee report. An extremely meager, short, embarassing, useless report. Pretty useless referee reports. The International Review of Law and Economics has recently published the article "Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War" by J. Will never submit there again. Suggested a field journal, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Crawford rejects although refs and editor recommends revision. The time to response is not long as well. Very tough report on the first RR, extensive changes suggested, though all feasible and mostly all improved the quality of the paper. Waste of submission fee. Handled by the new co-editor. No substantive comments about the content of the paper at all. Extremely unprofessional. ", Fast response.
No flyouts yet. The negative one says there is no methodology novelty. 1 reviewer R&R, two reject. good process overall, Good experience. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Two referee reports. Desk rejected as outside the scope of the journal. Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. He gave few recommendations. 1 serious person pushing his method. Should be careful to submit. referees appear to understand the area. We regularly reject without referees the majority of all papers submitted to the QJE. The transfer offer was helpful, though, since we did not have to pay a submission fee in order to send the paper to the other journal. But I'm a nobody. Insightful comments by both referees and editor. That thing (s)he claimed was wrong was in fact trivially correct, but the referee was completely clueless. I stopped reading after that). Did not receive a rejection letter from the co-editor. Bad experience with both the referee reports and the editor, Single RR, Editor said couldn't find a second reviewer. Editor from outside of the field (empirical corporate fin) did not think that my paper (ap theory) is interesting. Too long waiting time. One referee suggests alternative data sources for robustness even though it took as a year to hand-collect the original data. Total waste of time. They have not released it, sorry. Three rounds: one major + two minor (the last one being really minor, like copy-editing and missing references minor). Ref needed 6 months to produce a paragraph of a response. Would submit here again now that I know what to expect. Two months for desk reject -- no comments given. desk rejected after more than 2 months, very generic motivation (try a field journal), they took the submission fees and thanked me a lot for the payment! 19 Jul 2023. I had to contact the Editor after 2 months of seeing no change in status on my manuscript. Please post listings by subject area. One good referee, one ok, one terrible. Click here for more information. Insane process and utterly inexperienced referee. linking the paper with the "literature in the field", although we specifically say that our empirical application is novel to the field, so there are no comparable references. Unfair decision. This journal is a joke. Ok and efficient process - was told at one point that Chirs Pissarides had to approve acceptance our paper because of the subject matter, which seemed implausible. Finance Job Rumors (489,527) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,815) Micro Job Rumors (15,246) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,029) China Job Market (103,535) Industry Rumors (40,351) 1 referee with small reasonable suggestions. Water Research Manager (Project Manager) One quite short referee report. Serious referee report, but without any helpful particular suggestion. Desk rejected in two weeks. They have officially adopted the policy of not giving reasons for desk rejections given the 75% desk rejection rate. One extremely thorough and helpful report, one shorter but still raising valid points. Editor accepted the article within one week. After that Editor took 2 months to answer positively to my R&R. Recommended to aim for field journals. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. 6 months to receive half-assed & useless referee reports and request for major revisions. Instead, they should've looked at B." Long waiting for 10 months, send 3 emails to ask, reply: under review, some useful comments from ref despite recommending reject. Good overall experience. No comments about the paper itself. Desk rejection in 6 minutes with a "pretended" letter, which could be used for any paper. Extremely helpful comments that significantly improved the paper in the end. The process was fair, with good pace. Fast editorial process. very good experiencefast and helpful comments from the co-editor and two refereesAverage time between the submission and response is about 1.5 months, well run journal. two referees with constructive comments, one referee rather negative and no substantial comment. Good experience. Referee report useless. While the ref rejection runied my day, I must conclude that the process was very efficient and the editors/refs earned every penny of the submission fee based on the feedback I received. Came back within 4 hours, nice letter by Katz with suggestions of where to submit, 5 days for a desk reject. Referees did not understand the contribution of the paper. Decent reports; AE was a bit difficult, but ultimately helpful, Good reports and constructive feedback from AE; only 1 round of R&R. Rejected in 24 hrs, no reason given. Avoid at all cost. Two ref reports in 8 days. Desk rejected after 1 month. The AEA provides a guide to the job market process created by John Cawley. After 4 months it remained Under review and these comments I get from the Reviewer: "You have a good idea. Great letter from Nezih G and two good referee reports. Reasonable comments from referees. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. Also very fast. The editor was quick and helpful. Journal of Economics and Finance Education. Good experience as far as rejections go. journal does not sound like a good fit for my research agenda. He clearly did not read the paper and wrote a pretty much standard rejection that had nothing to do with the paper. Editor rejected the paper based on the decision of board of editor. Took 5 months in total, 2 reports, a paragraph each. Very good referee reports and useful suggestions from the AE, 1 very good referee report, 1 completely useless. I regret to inform you that we do not consider this work to be of sufficient interest to our readership to warrant publication. The IJIO has a rapid review process. Constructive comments and Nice experimence! Expected better, expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision. But at least fast.
Econ Job Market Rumors Accounting | Now Hiring The rejection was fine but took too long for a desk reject. Single-blind review system for a 250 bucks fee. Ref #1 created new issues after I addressed his first round. I think s/he would have been satisfied by an appendix section on the issue raised. Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. 2 students with mostly useless comments. Clear suggestions with R&R decision from Hillary Hoynes. At first the handling editor informed us that the paper is sent for peer review. The Editor is regular contributor to that mistake and provided non-sensical rejection. 2.5 months review. Desk rejected in one day. Good editor. Two rounds of R&R. Two very thin referee reports. Desk rejected the same day! Fantastic experience. the? Desk reject after few days with some useful suggestions. I had a paper that was to be revised and the review was very positive. Referees asked for useless extensions and took more than six months in each round. Both referees suggested papers to be cited in the literature review, which seem like their own papers. So do keep an eye on the paper and cotnact the editor if necessary. 3 week desk reject. Waited 2 months for the paper to be assigned to an editor. A number of emails without reply since then. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. After 2 rounds the reviewers were OK. Then, the editor asked two times to change the abstract and the highlights. Editor (Collins) might read the paper, but did not say much. Very fast and professional referee reports. Polite letter from Bekaert. Editor response, not a fit to the journal, too theory! The third was R&R, and was more substantive. Terrible referee report referee made contradictory statements and econometric mistakes in report. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. Reason: topic/results too narrow with respect to broad audience. FYI: Your editor sucks). 2 rounds after which referee recommended acceptance, but editor (Chakravorty) kept the paper for 7(!) However, it would probably help to read some of Joanna Lahey's work to get a sense of the state-of-art methods with these audit studies." The editor claimed that himself and another associate editor read the paper. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again, Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees. Pretty rough coments from an editor who clearly did not get the point of the paper. Expensive but quick. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. Letters from the Editor was nice. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. Two very useful ref reports in the first round. Fast and serious journal. Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. DK carefully read and gave constructive feedback. It is not clear why the referee does not like the paper but it is clear he does not need 5 months for such a report. Editor read and carefully considered the paper. 7 days for desk reject. desk reject after three months editor claimed they did not publish papers on this topic but they bogh b, actually submitted in 2017; desk rejection after 1 week; short and friendly answer of editor; however inconclusive, editoral. Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. One stern but very helpful referee report (five pages, competent and extremely detailed) in two weeks. Horrible associate editor, Arkolakis, rejected based on his personal views. Accepted without revisions. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh, London, Manchester - UK, Predoctoral Fellow Editor handled the paper well. Editor clearly read the paper and claimed a referee did too. 16 hour turnaround with nice letter of thoughtful comments suggesting more specialized journal. My fault for not discussing that up front. multiple rounds, one of round took about a year. Referees didn't get the point of the paper, my fault. Overall good experience. Some reviewers disappeared after the first review, the editors could't even find an alternative, and the comments were not assessed critically by the editors due to an editorial change. I dont care whether you want to increase citations and impact factor fo your journal. Two years for such outcome. Awful experience. Complete waste of 10 months and $200. The editor VanHoose made some good comments though. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. One rubbish review from a referee who had no idea what the paper was about. Nice letter. Decent experience; overall fast, fair and constructive. Worst referee report ever. Argued lack of fit, dispite publishing a paper on the subject a few months ago, one very short useless report in seven months, 5 months + 125USD for a referee rejection with a report of about 21 lines.SHAME. Do not send a paper to BE JM, Very bad experience. Unacceptable waiting time. Fast desk reject. Useless reports. The time was not long (bit less than 10 weeks), the outcome was what is normal in this profession (Referee rejection). 2 weeks. Referee one was inexpert in the field, and suggested we cite mostly irrelevant papers published by the handling editor. One referee waited for 182 days to submit his/her report as there was a time stamp on the report. Referee report transformed the paper significantly. Very efficient process. Neither of the two reviewers seemed t have read the paper. After revise and resubmit, was rejected, Next year, similar article appeared in the journal authored by one of the associate editors. Wasted 17 months. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy, Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript. 2nd round interview requests recently sent out which will result in second round of flyouts), Ederer (Toulouse), Beyhum (CREST/ENSAI), Wiseman (Berkeley), Zillessen (Oxford), Seibel (Zurich), De Vera (CEMFI), Laffitte (ULB), Leibniz-Zentrum fr Europische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH Mannheim, Lin William Cong @Cornell sexual harassment, Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Clare Balboni (MIT) Yong Cai (Northwestern), Joel Flynn (MIT), Benny Kleinman (Princeton), Joan Martinez (UC Berkeley), Anh Nguyen (MIT), Agathe Pernoud (Stanford), Roman Rivera (Columbia), Michael Rubens (UCLA), Regina Seibel (Zurich), Natalia Serna (Wisconsin), Christiane Szerman (Princeton), Milena Wittwer (Boston), Hannah Zillessen (Oxford), Althoff (Princeton), Balboni (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Szerman (Princeton), Serna (Wisconsin), Luxembourg Institue of Socio-Economic Research, Assistant Professor in Computational Social Science, Eisfeld (Toulouse), Tiew (Harvard), Woo (Rochester), Sharma (NDS), Sullivan (Yale), Ramos (Harvard), Majewska (Toulouse), Ebrahimi (UBC), Lesellier (Toulouse), Camara (Northwestern), Alba (Toronto), Conlon (Harvard), Bernhardt (Harvard), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), National University of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Aina(Zurich) Ba (UPenn) Bernhardt (Harvard) Cai (Northwestern) Carry(CREST) Chang (Yale) Flynn(MIT) Geddes (Northwestern) Moszkowski (Harvard) Nguyen(MIT) Pernoud(Stanford) Puri(MIT) Rivera(Columbia) Saxena (Harvard) Schuh(Stanford) Souchier(Stanford) Sung (Columbia) Tiew (Harvard) Vitali(UCL) Wiseman (Berkeley), Wong (Columbia), Teng (LUISS), Dimitri Pugachev (INSEAD), Andrey Kurbatov (INSEAD), Felix Wilke (SSE), Uettwiller (Imperial), Sam Piotrowski (Connecticut), Chuck Fang (Wharton), Thomas Grunthaler (Munster), Celine Fei (UNC), Denis Monakov (UCLA), Weiting Hu (Washignton-St. Louis), Valentin Schubert (SSE), Kurbatov, Wilke - declined, Schubert - declined, Piotrowski, Pugachev, Grunthaler - declined, Monakov, Piotrowski (Connecticut), Pugachev (INSEAD), Monakov (UCLA), Kurbatov (INSEAD), Nguyen (MIT), Flynn (MIT), Singh (MIT), Sullivan (Yale), Kennedy (UC Berkeley), Sharma (MIT), Qiu (UPenn), Lanzani (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Vergara (UC Berkeley), Wiseman (UC Berkeley), Kroft (Toronto, AP) Kaur (Berkeley AP) Deshpande (Chicago AP) Ryan (Yale AP), Minni (LSE), Otero (UC Berkeley), Pernoud (Stanford), Crews (Chicago), Barone (UCLA), Mills (Princenton), Cai (NW), Jou (UCLA), Rittenhouse (UCSD) Mugnier (CREST) Acquatella (Harvard) Rivera (Columbia) D'Adamo (UCL) Zahra Diop (Oxford), Barone (UCLA), Mills (Princeton), Pellegrina (NYUAD AP), Mugnier (CREST), Beyhum (CREST AP), Deopa (AMSE), Kuang (Cornell), Gordon (Yale), Wang (EUI), Benmir (LSE & Paris Dauphine), Dahis (PUC-Rio AP), Lieber (Chicago), Tebbe (IIES), Ospital (UCLA), DAdamo (UCL), Peking University, Guanghua School of Management, Shen (UCLA), Qiu (Penn), Yang (Princeton), Assistant Professor in Environmental and Resource Economics, Flynn (MIT), Chen (Stanford GSB), Bleemer (Yale), Singh (MIT), Lanzani (MIT), Nguyen (MIT), Seck (Harvard), Sandomirsiy (Caltech), Wang (Stanford GSB), Carry (CREST), Conlon (Harvard), Vergara (Berkeley), Moscona (MIT), Souchier (Stanford), Bleemer (Yale), Carry (CREST), Chen (Stanford GSB), Seck (Harvard), Singh (MIT), Bernhard Dalheimer (Trade & Macroeconomics); Laura Montenovo (State & Local Finance); Guy Tchuente (Quantitative Methods in Spatial Analysis), Hannon (Cambridge), Austin (Oxford Said), Altmann (Oxford), Wangner (TSE), Rudov (Princeton), Uettwiller (Imperial), Leroutier (SSE), de Sousa (UC3M), Pieroni (UAB), Pugachev (INSEAD), Ashtari (UCL), Kim (UCSD), Casella (UPenn), Raja (LSE), Lieber (Chicago), Yang (Duke); see https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sef/events/seminars/, Assistant Professor of Economic Analysis and Policy, Moszkowski (Harvard), Wheeler (Berkeley), Cui (Wharton), Kytomaa (University of Texas at Austin), Sullivan (Yale), Seibel (Zurich), Fleitas (Leuven), Barnes (Berkeley), Lehr (Boston University) https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/AcademicAreas/Seminars, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Wiseman (UC Berkeley), Ferey (LMU), Morazzoni (UPF), Acquatella (Harvard/BU), Diop (Oxford), Eisfeld (TSE), Khalifa (AMSE), Gauthier (CREST), Bodere (NYU), Decker (Zurich), Wang (EUI), Wangner (TSE), Garg (Columbia), Miglino (UCL), Gordon (Yale), Michael Gilraine (NYU), Victor Aguiar (Western), International, public, labor, IO, development, Prasanthi Ramakrishnan (WUSTL), 02/15/2023, Delgado-Vega (UC3M), Castillo Quintana (NYU), Bergeron (USC AP), Slough (NYU, AP), Seck (Harvard), Teso (Northwestern, AP), Bernhardt (Harvard), No offer has been made as of March 3rd, your information is wrong, Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Pauline Carry (CREST), Benny Kleinman (Princeton), Kwok-Hao Lee (Princeton), Jacob Moscona (Harvard/MIT), Sagar Saxena (Harvard), Puri (MIT), Conlon (Harvard), Kleinman (Princeton), Bilal (Harvard AP), Seck (Harvard), Nguyen (MIT), Moscona (MIT), Crews (UChicago), Kleinman (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Moscona (MIT), Grindaker (BI Oslo), Terracciano (SFI), Huebner (UCLA), Taburet (LSE), Azzalini (IIES), Chen (SFI), Morazzoni (UPF), Gopalakrishna (EPFL), Charles (USC Marshall), Monteiro (Kellogg), ; see https://tinyurl.com/4rktwnf6, Minni (LSE), Guige (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Merilainen (ITAM), Carry (CREST), Khalifa (AMSE), Seibel (Zurich), Heath Milsom (Oxford), Carry (CREST); Wiseman (Berkeley); Casella (UPenn); Wu (Rochester); Silliman (Harvard); Morazzoni (UPF); Khalifa (AMSE); Babalievsky (Minnesota); Jha (UBC); Qiu (UPenn).