The Saint Petersburg Paradox and Its Solution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is very interesting, but I have some recommendations as follows:

1. The author can explain the urgency of this research in the background more comprehensively. The paragraphs presented seem to only display the main idea without supporting evidence and theory.

2. The author should display reference sources starting from the introduction to the results and discussion.

3. The author needs to explicitly display the contributions and implications of this paper.

4. The method presented is quite systematic, but I do not understand how and where the author can start the method. What research steps are taken by the author.

5. Likewise, the results of the research, both in experiments and experiments, the author needs to provide a discussion section by showing the relevance of the research conducted with other research.

6. In addition to the summary, in the conclusion section the author should present the weaknesses of the research and the direction of future research.

Good luck.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper “reviews the history of this fascinating paradox and the attempts to solve it, and proposes a new study” in form of an experiment.

I must say I liked the paper; it is indeed a nice piece of work overall.

Sections 2, 3 and 4 provide the historical background; these sections are well-written and provide detail account however perhaps are too long and not needed for the purpose. I suggest the author revisits these section and makes these concise, focused and short(er).

Section 5 on the other hand requires more attention. The author should describe the previous experiments in the literature mentioned here in more detail.

The main contribution of this paper is the experiment in Section 6 which could have been presented in a more “reader-friendly” way.

The experiment in this paper should have been compared to the existing ones in the literature (as reported in Section 5). The results here should be contrasted with those found in the literature, say, in Neugebauer (2010).  

The findings of the experiment in Section 6.1 are reported in page 13; the “results” have been summarised as (four) bullet points – these must be elaborated and critically analysed and discussed further.

The results from the simulation in Section 6.2 could have been contrasted against the findings in the actual experiment (as in Section 6.1)

I didn’t find any specific typos; however the author must do an overall good editorial check for any possible “mistakes” in presentation, usage of grammar and in formatting.

To sum up, I do think this paper has review an important issue which should be accepted for publication; however, the authors should revise it to make it more user-friendly.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments are as follows:

This paper focuses on the Saint Petersburg Paradox and its solution. It reviews the history of this fascinating paradox and the attempts to solve it, and proposes a new study that tries to shed light on the question. The main conclusion is that the behavior of the individuals is not paradoxical at all, and the paradox is intrinsic to the game. It is an interesting work.

The English writing should be improved with help of professionals. There are some typos, grammatical errors and unsmooth expressions.

The literature is too old. There is no any paper published at 2022 in References. Please add more publications at 2022.

Section 3 presents the first attempts to solve the Saint Petersburg Paradox. However, the main results obtained in this section are not presented properly. The main results should be presented in the form of theorem, proposition and property. The proof should be provided mathematically.

Section 4 has the same issue.

Please add some comparative analyses with exiting one to reveal the advantage of this paper.

In section 7, some future research directions should be pointed out.

 

    In sum, I suggest minor revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

The English writing should be improved with help of professionals. There are some typos, grammatical errors and unsmooth expressions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf