一審意見(jiàn)回來(lái)，有點(diǎn)吃不準(zhǔn)，大家?guī)兔纯矗?/h1>
三個(gè)審稿意見(jiàn)，兩個(gè)比較正面，最后一個(gè)有點(diǎn)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(jiàn)，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(jiàn)，但大部分都是指出一些typo外加一些語(yǔ)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(jué)reviewer 3估計(jì)對(duì)這個(gè)topic不是太了解，他對(duì)我們的模型的適用性和一些基礎(chǔ)假設(shè)提出了疑問(wèn)，但實(shí)際上這些假設(shè)在領(lǐng)域內(nèi)算是比較常見(jiàn)的做法。前兩位審稿人明顯對(duì)這個(gè)topic比較了解，因此對(duì)這些假設(shè)沒(méi)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(xiàn)來(lái)證明假設(shè)的合理性，是否有機(jī)會(huì)扭轉(zhuǎn)reviewer 3的印象？
返回小木蟲(chóng)查看更多
今日熱帖
三個(gè)審稿意見(jiàn)，兩個(gè)比較正面，最后一個(gè)有點(diǎn)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(jiàn)，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(jiàn)，但大部分都是指出一些typo外加一些語(yǔ)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(jué)reviewer 3估計(jì)對(duì)這個(gè)topic不是太了解，他對(duì)我們的模型的適用性和一些基礎(chǔ)假設(shè)提出了疑問(wèn)，但實(shí)際上這些假設(shè)在領(lǐng)域內(nèi)算是比較常見(jiàn)的做法。前兩位審稿人明顯對(duì)這個(gè)topic比較了解，因此對(duì)這些假設(shè)沒(méi)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(xiàn)來(lái)證明假設(shè)的合理性，是否有機(jī)會(huì)扭轉(zhuǎn)reviewer 3的印象？ 返回小木蟲(chóng)查看更多
京公網(wǎng)安備 11010802022153號(hào)
1
沒(méi)有實(shí)質(zhì)性concern，好好解釋
，
·