前段时间投了经济学五大顶刊之一的Review of Economic Studies,进了外审了。
文章写的挺认真的，认为论述非常清晰，有很大希望能够revise and resubit。
结果匿名审稿人直接拒了，原因是 审稿人认为文章没有介绍 模型的前提假设
实际上，我的文章中，已经假设 市场是完全竞争市场。当代经济学中，完全竞争市场意味着：1，市场上有大量的卖者和买者，2，每个卖者对市场价格没有影响，3，买卖者都是价格的接收者。
严重怀疑匿名审稿人没有读过现代经济学。否则他就不会认为我的文章没有对市场进行假定了。
请教经验丰富的前辈，这种情况，我该怎么办？
我已经尽力了，可是审稿人居然认为我的模型的前提假设都没有介绍，好像我学习的经济学和他学习的经济学，完全不是一个教材
审稿报告如下
In the classical economics, long-run prices are determined by a free entry condition. Under the assumptions of homogeneous good, a small efficient scale, and no externalities, one finds that the long-run supply curve is flat at the cheapest cost of production. This paper aims to propose a new theory of long-run equilibrium price for heterogeneous goods. The authors never specify the market structure they have in mind—who the firms are, how do they maximize profits, can new firms enter, etc. In fact, they never discuss the firm’s problem. Why would a firm that sells a heterogenous good set prices according to their proposed equation?
I don’t think it should be published at REStud. There are many models of long-run price equilibrium with heterogeneous goods. The classical work of Hotelling (EJ 1929) discusses precisely this issue. Variations of Hotelling’s model (including Salop's circle and models of non-spatial heterogeneity) have been extensively applied to discuss entry behavior and long-run prices.
The paper’s analysis does not have the rigor needed to be published at REStud. There is no discussion of each firm’s objective function and the estimate of prices never attempts to instrument for endogeneity.
--
FROM 223.71.70.*