一審意見回來，有點吃不準(zhǔn)，大家?guī)兔纯矗?/h1>
三個審稿意見，兩個比較正面，最后一個有點吃不準(zhǔn)。編輯給了major revision。
reviewer 1: ...Overall, this is a very interesting and well executed paper. I have some questions and some suggestions for improvement, where the latter ones refer mainly to structure, motivation and readability. As the model is novel and, in my view, adds something important to the literature, the paper could make a valuable contribution to XXXX after a careful revision....
reviewer 1列了七八條意見，但都不太難回答。
reviewer 2: ...To the best of my knowledge, the authors are right that they are the first to carefully analyze a tractable equilibrium model with both belief heterogeneity and prospect-theory preferences. Theorems 1 and 2 are interesting, and so is the empirical exercise in section 4.
As explained by the authors, prediction markets constitute a growing toolbox for aggregating probability forecasts. The theoretical literature discussed by the authors has aimed to improve on this toolbox, in part by better understanding the actual behavior of market participants. The present article is a very good contribution to this theoretical literature....
reviewer 2列了18條修改意見，但大部分都是指出一些typo外加一些語言敘述上的建議，總體也還好。
reviewer 3: This paper is interesting and engaging to read. ...The model and market equilibrium appear to be sound and are well-explained. Modelling prospect theory is not my area of expertise but the authors do a good job at explaining this to the non-expert.
The paper is technical in nature and appears to be well-executed. I do have a number of substance concerns that that authors might consider. Each of these is discussed further below. The most concerning is whether the FLB or rFLB bias is actually the appropriate lens to empirically test a binary (win/lose or home/away) outcome. In my mind, this is not what the FLB or rFLB is about. ...
我感覺reviewer 3估計對這個topic不是太了解，他對我們的模型的適用性和一些基礎(chǔ)假設(shè)提出了疑問，但實際上這些假設(shè)在領(lǐng)域內(nèi)算是比較常見的做法。前兩位審稿人明顯對這個topic比較了解，因此對這些假設(shè)沒有提出質(zhì)疑。這種情況下如果我引一些領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的相關(guān)文獻來證明假設(shè)的合理性，是否有機會扭轉(zhuǎn)reviewer 3的印象？
返回小木蟲查看更多
今日熱帖
三個審稿意見，兩個比較正面，最后一個有點吃不準(zhǔn)。編輯給了major revision。
reviewer 1: ...Overall, this is a very interesting and well executed paper. I have some questions and some suggestions for improvement, where the latter ones refer mainly to structure, motivation and readability. As the model is novel and, in my view, adds something important to the literature, the paper could make a valuable contribution to XXXX after a careful revision....
reviewer 1列了七八條意見，但都不太難回答。
reviewer 2: ...To the best of my knowledge, the authors are right that they are the first to carefully analyze a tractable equilibrium model with both belief heterogeneity and prospect-theory preferences. Theorems 1 and 2 are interesting, and so is the empirical exercise in section 4.
As explained by the authors, prediction markets constitute a growing toolbox for aggregating probability forecasts. The theoretical literature discussed by the authors has aimed to improve on this toolbox, in part by better understanding the actual behavior of market participants. The present article is a very good contribution to this theoretical literature....
reviewer 2列了18條修改意見，但大部分都是指出一些typo外加一些語言敘述上的建議，總體也還好。
reviewer 3: This paper is interesting and engaging to read. ...The model and market equilibrium appear to be sound and are well-explained. Modelling prospect theory is not my area of expertise but the authors do a good job at explaining this to the non-expert.
The paper is technical in nature and appears to be well-executed. I do have a number of substance concerns that that authors might consider. Each of these is discussed further below. The most concerning is whether the FLB or rFLB bias is actually the appropriate lens to empirically test a binary (win/lose or home/away) outcome. In my mind, this is not what the FLB or rFLB is about. ...
我感覺reviewer 3估計對這個topic不是太了解，他對我們的模型的適用性和一些基礎(chǔ)假設(shè)提出了疑問，但實際上這些假設(shè)在領(lǐng)域內(nèi)算是比較常見的做法。前兩位審稿人明顯對這個topic比較了解，因此對這些假設(shè)沒有提出質(zhì)疑。這種情況下如果我引一些領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的相關(guān)文獻來證明假設(shè)的合理性，是否有機會扭轉(zhuǎn)reviewer 3的印象？ 返回小木蟲查看更多
京公網(wǎng)安備 11010802022153號
o
先表示認(rèn)同，再解釋
。
如果不是小同行，看到論文產(chǎn)生某種質(zhì)疑，先別急著否定別人的觀點，做研究有一個現(xiàn)象，叫自己一直堅信某種理論或解釋是正確的，但凡事沒有絕對，特別是做科研。
如果一篇論文不能被相關(guān)領(lǐng)域研究者看懂，可能是寫的問題，沒有表達明白。至于證明某種依據(jù)是不是絕對正確，不如說某種依據(jù)一般用在哪，并寫出其自帶的不足。這是客觀的做法
審稿人有時的一句看起來你不接受的話，未來有可能就是你的創(chuàng)新點，外行有時不是真的外行，內(nèi)行有時也不一定就是內(nèi)行，
，