General and special rela-vity theory of u-lity A story of (more - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

General and special rela-vity theory of u-lity

A story of (more than) a single ar-cle

History

Journal IF IF 5 Points Result Editor Special issue Theory and decision 0.72 0.842 20 Rejec-on Glenn Harrison American Economic Review 3.673 4.951 45 Desk rejec-on Larry Samuelson Review of Economic Studies 4.038 4.705 45 Desk rejec-on Botond Koszegi Economic Theory 1.262 1.274 25 Reviewers assigned, rejec-on Mark Machina Journal of Economic Theory 1.033 1.635 30 Reviewers assigned, rejec-on Marciano Siniscalchi Management Science 2.482 3.399 40 Reviewers assigned, major revision, minor revision, accepted Manel Baucells

Hard beginning

• Jul 2011: Mee-ng at prof. Sosnowska
• May 2012: Krzysztof Kontek PhD
• Sep 2012: First version of the ar-cle in MS Word
• Sep 2012: sent do Special Issue Theory and Decision
• Dec 2012?: Rejected by Glenn Harrison

– „The paper is marred by a needless a]ack on CPT” – „The paper is also marred by the lack of any mo-va-on for the approach.” – „The data of TK JRU 1992 were hypothe-cal.” – „dispense with the silliness” – „The experiments are not very convincing.” – „ I recommend rejec-on for the special issue of Theory and Decision.”

• Feb 2013: First version of the ar-cle in Latex
• Feb 2013: First trip to California

Fullerton

La Jolla – Harry Markowitz

San Diego – Mark Machina (monotonicity)

UCLA – Rakesh Sarin, Vitalie Spinu

Pacific Palisades – Allen Parducci

Silicon Valley – Andrzej Pohorille i Joanna Sokołowska

Stanford – Andrzej Skrzypacz

San Francisco – lot nad Golden gate, Alcatraz i NASA

Long way

• Mar 2013: sent to AER
• Mar 2013: desk rejected by Larry Samuelson

– „The range-dependent u-lity model is interes-ng and is nicely presented in this paper. As it stands, however, this paper is a be]er fit for a more specialized journal.” – „To be a good candidate for the AER, the paper would have to make more of a case for working with this model rather than the others.” – „Which exis-ng models generalize this model, and which does it generalize?”

• Mar 2013: sent to RevEconStud
• Mar 2013: desk rejected by Botond Koszegi

– „You present a new model of behavior under risk that is interes-ng both because of its psychological and theore-cal founda-ons and because of the fresh perspec-ve it applies to a lot of the evidence mo-va-ng non-expected u-lity theories. Having worked on some related issues, I was especially interested in reading your paper.” – „Overall, I find that your contribu-on is useful for decision theorists, but it is not sufficiently exci-ng for a general-interest audience, so it is a be]er fit for a more specialized journal.”

• Aug 2013: sent to ET, reviewers assigned
• Sep 2013: Second trip to California and to Massachussets (M. Machina con-nuity)

San Diego – Mark Machina (con-nuity) nasz „publicity director”

Harvard University: Tomek Strzałecki

Boston University – Jawaad Noor

MIT – Drazen Prelec

• Jul 2014: FUR conference in Ro]erdam
• Aug 2014: ET Rejec-on Mark Machina

– R1: „Although I donít feel the paper is making an important contribu-on to the literature, I Önd the model an interes-ng thought exercise and I think authors have done a nice job in discussing its limita-ons and comparing it with EU and CPT models.” – R2: „In my view the model is intui-vely very appealing. Despite these appealing features, I have some problems with the theore-cal exposi-on of the model. First, the authors could not convince me why an axioma-za-on with the certainty equivalent (CE) as primi-ve is useful. (…) A second drawback of the model is given by the unclear implica-ons of monotonicity.” – AE: „One review sees some merit in the paper and makes some hopefully useful sugges-ons, but in their le]er to me recommends rejec-on, and the

• ther review points out some important concerns. I share some of the

concerns they've expressed. (…) Accordingly I cannot accept the paper for publica-on in Economic Theory.”

• Sep 2014: sent to JET, reviewers assigned
• Jan 2015: JET rejec-on Marciano Sinischalchi

– R1: „I find the parsimonious representa-on interes-ng. I’m however very much concerned with the accuracy of the theore-cal results and I don’t find the data evidence the authors provide convincing at all. To my mind, these problems make the paper unsuitable for publica-on in the Journal of Economic Theory.” – R2: „Summing up, I think the paper should be revised and streamlined. That said, even though I am sympathe-c to the main results, I am not sure that, from a conceptual point of view, the paper offers a contribu-on at the level of JET (see the Sec-on Remarks below). For such a reason, I recommend rejec-on. I believe the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty or Journal of Mathema-cal Economics would be more suitable outlets.” – AE: „I was ini-ally quite hopeful about your paper. (…) However, both referees came back nega-ve, and point out different issues with your paper. (…) Overall, it seems to me that you have a poten-ally interes-ng idea and research project, but the paper is not ready yet.

• Jan 2015: Invited seminar at the Mathem-cs Department in Katowice (prof. Sablik)

Mar 2015: Conference in Fullerton

• Jun 2015: sent to MS
• Sep 2015: MS major revision Manel Baucells

– R1: „I recommend that it should be returned for a Major Revision, but I am not

• p-mis-c about the Önal result.”

– R2: „There are major problems with the paper – R3: „Overall, the paper is quite well wri]en and interes-ng to read. The model is simple, connects nicely with the literature, and explains some well-known paradoxes of EU. Below, I offer a few sugges-ons for improvement of this already excellent paper. ” – AE: „Moreover, while I was ini-ally exited by the paper, I had the feeling that there are many problems. (..) Despite the posi-ve assessment of reviewer 2, I think the cri-cal points pointed out by the more pessimis-c reviewers 1 and 3 weight heavily. There is more work needed in various dimensions of the paper, and I do not think it very likely that a posi-ve result will obtain in the next round, if at all. I therefore decided to recommend rejec-ng the paper. ” – DE: “I have received 3 reviews and an Associate Editor report on your paper. All but one reviewer think the paper contains a very interes-ng idea, but the current paper contains too many loose ends. (…) The AE is torn between rejec-on (perhaps open to resubmission) or a major revision, and ends up recommending rejec-on. Both op-ons have risks. (…) My experience with reject and resubmit, however, is that authors do not step up sufficiently. Hence, my decision is to posi-vely overrule the AE, and recommend a major revision.”

• Nov 2015: Internal seminars audience help
• Apr 2016: Conference in Fullerton

• May 2016: revision I sent to MS
• Jun 2016: FUR conference in Warwick
• Sep 2016: MS minor revision

– R1: „The author (I am going to use the singular) has addressed my main concerns about the

• paper. My assessment is rela-vely posi-ve. I think that now the paper is well wri]en and

much be]er than the first manuscript.” – R2: „I like the revision a lot more than I did the original paper. Considering that I was very skep-cal regarding the original submission, the authors have done a good job in convincing me that the paper has some merit.” – R3: no comments – AE: „All three reviewers acknowledge the significant improvements, and I agree with this percep-on. However, on the basis of the reports (and see my comments below), I think the paper s-ll requires quite some work (but the road to publica-on looks more clear).” – DE: „I have received 3 reviews and an Associate Editor report on your paper. The review team is quite happy with the revision of the paper. Each member s-ll offers some further sugges-ons. I have read the paper and also have a few sugges-ons. Hence, my recommenda-on is a minor revision.”

• Nov 2016: revision II sent to MS
• Jan 2017: MS accepted

– AE: „In my view the authors sufficiently accommodated the previous rounds' requests and comments, and the paper is well set up now. I think the paper is ready to be published. However (…) I wanted to have someone new to carefully read through the document once more, making sure everything is clear and correct.” – DE: „ I am pleased to accept your paper for publica-on in Management Science. The one reviewer has three minor points. I have carefully read the paper and noted several sugges-ons. Most of them are geared to shortening the paper.” „Congratula-ons for a novel model to account for risk preferences that is thought provoking and compa-ble with much experimental evidence.”

• Feb 2017: California
• Mar 2017: prof. Mamoru Kaneko seminar at

Warsaw School of Economics

– I looked at your paper; it is an excellent paper. I am impressed by the approach and results. I discussed it with Shotaro Shiba (an graduate student here). He is working on discoun-ng with risk and future. Your paper inspired him well. – Invita-on for a conference in Tokyo

• Jun 2017: MS Ar-cles in advance

• Extensions:

– Range-dependent u-lity with wealth effects – Frame-dependent u-lity (joint with Manel Baucells, Krzysztof Kontek) – Range-dependence for imprecise preferences (fuzzy preferences project joint with Michał Jakubczyk) – Subjec-ve range for uncertainty (maybe joint with Mamoru Kaneko)