三个审稿意见，两个比较正面，最后一个有点吃不准。编辑给了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列了七八条意见，但都不太难回答。

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条修改意见，但大部分都是指出一些typo外加一些语言叙述上的建议，总体也还好。

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. ...

我感觉reviewer 3估计对这个topic不是太了解，他对我们的模型的适用性和一些基础假设提出了疑问，但实际上这些假设在领域内算是比较常见的做法。前两位审稿人明显对这个topic比较了解，因此对这些假设没有提出质疑。这种情况下如果我引一些领域内的相关文献来证明假设的合理性，是否有机会扭转reviewer 3的印象？ 返回小木虫查看更多