The top traffic source to econjobrumors.com is Direct traffic, driving 56.39% of desktop visits last month, and Organic Search is the 2nd with 42.93% of traffic. Katz had very clear advice regarding revision (also what parts of the referee reports to ignore). EM suggested transfer to a different journal (which desk rejected after 2 hours). Desk rejected after 3 days from Shleifer. Very good experience all around. This journal is a scam. Decent reports. Placements of Recent Economics Graduates. One few sentence report after 5 month. 4.5 weeks to desk reject. No indication that the editor had even read the paper. Market Design; Organizational Economics; Personnel Economics; Race and Stratification in the Economy; Risks of Financial Institutions ; Urban Economics; . Good experience. Submitted a taxation paper that was outside of their comfort zone. It is frustrating to get rejected after convincing the referees. Nice reports that improve the quality and readability of the paper. Fast turn around; reviewers gave substantive comments. Just didn't seem to believe paper, but without any really good reason. 3 Reports. Editor desk rejected after a couple of days due to lack of fit. More importantly, the analysis is flawed by a number of major shortcomings. Editor is losing it. Rare experience where every round made paper much better. Desk reject in a few hours with very impersonal email. Said the contribution was not enough for a JFE publication. Extremely poor experience. Very fast, two high quality referee reports. Dislike for the computational results for no good reason. My paper on the "The Impact of MTV's 16 and Pregnant on Teen Childbearing" was quickly accepted due to its relevance and awesome nature. Both referees are bad at econometrics. 1 month desk reject. Also revisions handled quite efficiently! Referee didn't buy identification strategy. The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. Please add AERi to the combo box. 3 weeks. The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. For three months the editor has not assigned referees! One of the worst experience I have ever had. Most inefficient handling ever. Wouldn't submit here again. The editor provided one. It also tries to give advice, but not really doable. Agreed that this journal is a joke. Revision accepted three hours after submission. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. Just a couple of days for rejection, he had good words to say but paper too specific for general-interest. Terribly run journal and I wouldn't advise anyone to submit there. Although my manuscript wa based on stochastic processes, editor rejected it since they were not expert in applied econometrics. Appreciate the quick turnaround. Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. main message was that paper is a poor fit. Took about two weeks. Waste of time and money. Got response approx. Pretty sure the editor didn't even read the paper. And some more nice words. The other clearly did not understand what is going on and wrote some junk. Fast R&R with reasonable reports and encouraging editor letter. The response was I forgot to pay the submission fee. No complains. Horrible experience. Good experience. DE claims to have too large acceptance rate. Two years later still waiting for referee reports. Great experience. Took 6 weeks. Referee reports complete crap. Finished revision in 1 month and once resubmitted took them 2 weeks to accept. The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. Very good experience, competent referees and quick feedback after the resubmission. Results not important enough to a broad audience. Editor rejected the paper based on the decision of board of editor. Very weak report. Otrok rejected within 7 days; considerable comments on the paper, though the three major points are either just wrong or addressed (one of them prominently) in the introduction of the paper. Referees tough & somewhat demanding. I'd submit there again in the future. Terrible experience. It was completely incoherent. Suggested a field journal, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments. 2022-2023 China Job Market Wiki Economics Job Market Rumors Burak Uras (Tilburg AP), Caitlin Hegarty (Michigan), Diana Sverdlin Lisker (MIT), Suzanna Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Garima Sharma (MIT), Ruozi Song (USC), Heitor Sandes Pellegrina (NYU Abu Dhabi), Juanma Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Katherine Stapleton (WB/Oxford), Dario Tortarolo (Berkeley), Jonah Rexer (Wharton), Anna Vitali (UCL), Livia Alfonsi (Berkeley), Binta Zahra Diop (Oxford), Shafaat Yar Khan (WB/Rochester), Althoff (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Vaidya (Northwestern), Chan (Stanford), Bodere (NYU), Pernoud (Stanford), Kang (Stanford GSB), Minni (LSE), Otero (Berkeley), Bodere (NYU), Vergara (Berkeley), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Carry (CREST), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Ospital (UCLA), Lanzani (MIT), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Kennedy (Berkeley), Souchier (Stanford). Overall, a very good experience. Took 9 months for acceptance. One referee, although clearly in favour of publication, asked a good deal of revisions and it took us 4 motnhs to respond so most of the delay may have been our fault. The first response took more than I expected, but the referee's comment was very constructive. Job Market - Economics AE decided to reject! Referee reports were on the shrt side, but competent and polite, unfrtunately I doubt that the comments received will help improving the paper. Nice comments and feedback from Associate Editor. Both referees suggested papers to be cited in the literature review, which seem like their own papers. Paper was poorly read by the referees. Really bad experience! A nice formated letter saying that the topic was not interesting enough for the audience of the Journal. One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways. Three poor reports. Submitted reports from a previous (close) referee rejection at a higher ranked journal. Either way, unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees. The acceptance came quickly after the second round of review. Good report and conditionally accepted with minor revisions. Finance Job Rumors (489,006) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,503) Micro Job Rumors (15,223) Macro Job Rumors (9,792) European Job Market (100,940) China Job Market (103,450) Industry Rumors (40,309) Referee misread the paper, and hammered us on points that we were not making. Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half. Reject and resubmit. I feel that mediocre editors are too scared to consider papers unless at least one of the authors is a big shot. One referee was thoughtful and recommended acceptance; Second referee asked for more results; AE agreed with the 1st referee. Desk rejection (standard email). Editor suggested that paper was better suited for JDE (LOL). I am making revisions. One recommended reject, the other R&R. Referred to field, seems editor at least scanned and maybe even read the whole thing. Spent a week rewriting the paper according to requests of the editor ("put figures in the end of the paper" and such), then got a desk reject. Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. Sent it to another top 5 instead where it got accepted after one round of revisions - never give up guys! 2 weeks for desk rejection. He/she also asked for the summary statistics of my high frequency data while I already provided the estimates of bid-ask spread, price impact, order flow autocorrelation of each month for the entire contracts which shows his lack of knowledge about market microstructure. The paper was under minor revisions. Comments were non-constructive and some were even wrong. Two reports. Overall good experience. PhD Candidates in Economics | NBER editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". Second round 4 months before acceptance. Great experience. Revised carefully and resent, then they sent to another editor and another reviewer whose report contradicted the first and was very vague. Recommended field journal, and it was in fact eventually published in the top field journal. The editor did point out a couple of interesting things. Two rounds of R&R! It's going to be most accurate for economics, political science, public policy & other professional schools. If you don't like my paper then desk reject the first time, and don't ask me to resubmit! Reviewing all the documents, she does not like the paper: rejection with 800 words of blabla. The journal is a joke! extremely long wait, and a really poor referee report. Technical issues handled by non-experts. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic. Economics Job Market. Editor recommended field journal submission. 2 students with mostly useless comments. One report only, not very helpful, relatively slow for just one report. The new editor (Leeat Yariv) did a great job: She indeed read the paper and gave constructive comments. Long time to first response and had to chase up editor, but comments were helpful and editor was very engaged in the revision process. Stay away from this journal if you do not have a connection from inside. One stern but very helpful referee report (five pages, competent and extremely detailed) in two weeks. solution? A drawback is that it takes time. game (can anyone confirm this?)? submission was in 2017. 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). Did not receive a rejection letter from the co-editor. Quick desk rejection from the Editor (about a week). Standard 'not good fit/match for journal'. Desk rejected the same day! Got reject after a year and half of work! Wide disagreement among reviewers about paper, but one very helpful report. Very good experience. Very clear about what was needed for revision and the 2nd round was only minor comments. Quickly accepted after the revisions were completed. Don't think they even bothered reading the first page. We may have been aiming too high. Who are these people?? 2 months for a generic desk rejection with not 1 signle comment on the paper. Saying that the topic is not general enough. One of the papers has over 3000 citations. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. Helpful and fair referee reports. Four months for a desk reject! Rejected after 1st R&R. Worst experience ever. Editor sends paper just to his/her peers with predefined ideas. 100 USD for such VALUABLE suggestion. Extremely fast and thoughtful. several days. OK comments from referee. Horrible associate editor, Arkolakis, rejected based on his personal views. Not surprised to hear that the impact of the journal is going down. Good report. Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. Quick and professional handling by the editor. Took way too long prob will avoid in future. One year since submission, no replies to my queries shitty journal. Overall, pretty speedy given my submission coincided with end of year grading season and winter holidays in the US. Desk rejected by Katz within 24 hours. (I submitted almost the same paper to another journal). Desk rejection with no comments in 3 weeks. Got most thorough, informed, and useful referee reports in 5 years. Desk rejected in 14 days, just long enough to get hopes up, with boilerplate "not general interest.". paper took over a month to get desk rejected because of problems with elsevier system. Between two referee reports and two conference discussions, I have some things to consider for future submission. Co-editor and one referee attacked the paper for something that the paper already explicitly adresses. Had to send several emails inquiring about the status. Both referees were a bit too negative, but the reports were useful. Referee was sharp, thoughtful, and thorough. Annoyed because all of the concerns were addressed and yet she could not be bothered to re-read the paper. Paper went multiple rounds over 2 years. JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending). One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor. 1 suggested r&r other reject, AE decided to reject--fair decision. One decent report. Good feedback from AE too. Bad experience. Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. Editor obviously read over the paper and gave a couple of helpful comments. But the other one was useless; it's like a collection of "minor comments.". Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA)Berkeley - USA, Director of Economics and Data One very good review, two quite missed points. His reports were completely crap. Editor's comments were very useful, like a good referee report. Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. Nice process and outcome. Not enough of a contribution for JPE, suggested AEJs. Form letter. Two high quality reports. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. Good reports. But I'm a nobody. Comments were helpful. Empirical results didn't match their political priors so recommended rejection. He said he liked my paper and thought it was inventive. One great, very helpful report; one report that made an honest effort, but wasn't useful; one report that was one paragraph long and littered with spelling mistakes. Very nice words from the editor but useless referee reports. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. +6 months for a desk rejection without a single comment. Three reports, all of high quality, within 2 months. No reason given. It is run by "Kirk", [1] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. The paper is now much stronger. Glad that they didn't waste my time. quick decision by the editor. Sick comments and rejection for no reasons. When we chased, we received detailed referee reports and R&R quickly, but were given just 2 weeks to make massive changes to the paper - we withdrew and used comments to publish elsewhere. Very slow process but happy to get accepted. Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. I expected better from this journal. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! Oh well, on to the next journal. Very good referee reports - largely positive but requiring some modifications, deleting one section. Welcome to the Mathematics Jobs Wiki 2021-2022 research positions page. All suggest major revision and change of approach. Editor argued I had observational data and no identification, hence instant rejection. All of them are much speedier and you will actually get helpful comments that will improve your paper. Editor (Collins) might read the paper, but did not say much. Fairly standard rejection letter, not general enough. Worst referee report ever. 3 months was a little long to wait, though. Very useful comments. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. The whole process took about a little bit more than a year, which is very good. Tyranny of the single review. Very quick route to getting useful reports. 7 months for 1 decent report and 1 poor report. I thought that I deserved more respect. Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. At least the fee is refunded. Reasonable comments from referees. Provided very useful comments. Awesome experience. 2 months after first submission of manuscript. Avoid him. I got the referee reports after 2.5 months from submission. I will submit again. Received acceptance on the same day i resubmitted the paper. Desk-rejected after ten days. Extremely slow journal and not well managed journal. Fast desk reject. Very professionalthe referee reports were fine but rather tough given the quality of the journal, 3 rounds, all comments addressed, rejected because 1 reviewer did not read the last version. Two weeks to desk reject. AE recommended another journal. Reviewers did not understand anything. Referee wrote a short report with easily implementable suggestions, suggesting revision. Think one more time before sending here. In print a couple of weeks later. Milner's an emeritus, what else does he have to do? So unprofessional and shameful. Smooth process, a bit too much work for this journal. Suggested field journal. "In order to speed up and improve the submission process for both authors and referees, we have raised the number of papers that we reject without seeking reports.". Two helpful referee reports. One month for the desk reject. Engineering at HPE After 14 month a desk rejection arrived. Two years ago, I had a different paper rejected by EER, with two good referee reports and an AE negative about it. Although our paper is rejected by the reviewer, I would be very happy to read the referee report. The editor's letter was well-written. Held my paper for a full year and rejected it on a split decision with one ref suggesting an RR and the other a reject. Good report. not broad enough, it seems that JHR considers themselves as a general interest journal. Very helpful reports. Such along time frame for such a poor assessment of the paper. Negative reaction of referees. Campus visits. Accepted version was greatly improved. That is, the handling of the submission took almost 4 months, I think this is unacceptable: what is the point to have quick referee reports if the editorial team takes such a long time? The second one is more critical and seems to be angry by the fact that I'm not citing his work. Editor wrote a few short comments. The second time I was told that my results were "not surprising". University of Sheffield. Sent it to EL on Christmas Eve, got the desk reject from Gomez right after Christmas on 26th for not enough contributions. Then took about 14 months to be come out in print. One good ref report, the other apparently did not read the paper. Lousy reports showing lack of proper reading. Referee seemed have read just the abstract. Good points, though, and overall a good experience. A reviewer gave some thoughtful comments. 6 months for useless reports. Excellent reports that really improved the paper. One referee report excellent. Very tough report on the first RR, extensive changes suggested, though all feasible and mostly all improved the quality of the paper. 1 reviewer was clearly an expert, 2 others were less thorough than might be expected, one recommended R&R the other did not read the paper was clearly ideologically biased, the editor sided with the latter, Quick process, referees made some good comments, not a bad experience, one positive referee report, one negative referee report. Expensive but quick. Suggested top field journal. Some good comments from referees, overall a good experience. Good editor. Considering withdrawing. Rejected afterwards. One referee gave lots of great comments, while the other referee was pretty much useless. Editor obviously read the paper. Editor then said with a quick/thorough response and no need to go back to refs. Average Quality R-Reports, one missed one has good comments. The paper is not of the interest of SCW readers! The reviewer was excellent, made the paper much better with his/her comments. Yep, it is. His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting Decision based on 1 one-paragraph review that didn't refer to anything specific in the paper. Constructive and very specific. My paper was much of empirical. Download the MIT Economics Job Market Packet. The editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions. We made almost all of the changes required by the referees and the editor accepted it. 19. Editor was changed, asked for electronic resubmission and paper got rejected. Reviews were fair. Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. Terrible experience - slow and unjustified decision. Revision accepted for publication in one week. Under one month for one very brief report saying not good enough for the journal and a completely indecipherable AE report. Monica Singhal handled the submission within a bit less than 2 months, and takes time to give a detailed opinion on the paper, impresive! Very quick rejection (24 hours), with nice words from the editor, who obviously read the paper. 2 fairly helpful reports. Good editing process. Desk reject after 27 days by Kurt Mitman. 14 days for a desk rejection. In reality, the paper is poorly motivated and the link between the model and the anecdotal evidence discussed in the introduction is not clear. WD has become a true shitshow. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. Moderately useful reports. Editor decided to not even send the revised paper back to the referees. Editors only pick those with close network. Also gave a lengthy extension. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. Two referee reports, one good and constructive and the other so-so. Very bad experience. Stay away! Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee! It seems that the last guy didn't read the paper carefully and I wonder how it could take 4month to write such a poor report. Two reports negative and one positive, editor chooses to reject.
Legbar Eggs Taste,
Lisa Tremblay Obituary,
Issuing Authority For Driver's License I9,
Cricut Easypress 2 Warranty Registration,
Does Walgreens Close For Snow,
Articles E
