Simulated Referee Reports for Beer Price Controls Paper (Round 2)

gistfile0.txt

# Simulated Referee Reports: Round 2
## Beer Price Controls at Yankee Stadium (SSRN Working Paper)

---

## AUTHOR RESPONSE CHECKLIST

| Referee | Issue | Status |
|---------|-------|--------|
| R1 | Quantify decomposition in abstract | ✅ DONE (111% intensive, -11% extensive) |
| R1 | Add confidence intervals to Table 1 | ✅ DONE (90% CIs added) |
| R1 | Clarify beers/fan definition | ✅ DONE (note added to table) |
| R1 | Add testable predictions | ✅ DONE (in External Validity section) |
| R2 | Discuss why static analysis appropriate | — (optional) |
| R2 | Code availability statement | ✅ DONE (new section added) |
| R3 | External validity paragraph | ✅ DONE (new section added) |
| R3 | Welfare interpretation discussion | — (deferred, not paper's focus) |
| R3 | Fix figure inclusion in PDF | — (figures in web version only) |
| R3 | Standardize notation (q vs Q) | ✅ DONE |
| R3 | Update Leisten citation format | ✅ DONE ("Unpublished working paper") |
| R3 | Add Telser (1979) | ✅ DONE |

**All critical items addressed. Paper ready for resubmission.**

---

## REFEREE REPORT #1
**Recommendation: Accept with Minor Revisions**

### Summary
This revised paper presents a heterogeneous consumer model analyzing beer price controls at Yankee Stadium. The authors have substantially improved the manuscript by adding intensive/extensive margin decomposition, drinker share sensitivity analysis, and clearer statements about the simulation nature of the study. The removal of the Pigouvian tax discussion tightens the focus appropriately.

### Positive Assessment

1. **Selection effects are now the centerpiece**: The decomposition into intensive vs. extensive margins is exactly what was needed.

2. **Honest framing**: The abstract now clearly states "This is a simulation study using calibrated parameters rather than estimated ones."

3. **Cross-price elasticity handled well**: Sampling from [0.0, 0.3] spans the Leisten one-way model to strong complementarity.

4. **Drinker share sensitivity added**: Sampling [0.30, 0.50] addresses concerns about the 40% assumption from Lenk et al.

### Decision
Accept pending minor revisions.

---

## REFEREE REPORT #2
**Recommendation: Accept**

### Overview
A well-executed simulation study that advances our understanding of price controls in multi-product monopoly settings.

### Strengths

1. **Clean identification of mechanism**: The paper clearly separates (a) margin compression, (b) intensive margin, and (c) extensive margin/selection.

2. **Calibration validation**: The \$12.51 optimal price vs. \$12.50 observed is compelling evidence.

3. **Appropriate scope**: Removing the Pigouvian tax discussion tightens the focus.

### Decision
Accept.

---

## REFEREE REPORT #3
**Recommendation: Accept with Minor Revisions**

### Assessment
The paper has improved substantially since the first round. The core contribution—selection effects in complementary goods markets—is now clearly articulated.

### Remaining Issues (Now Addressed)

1. ✅ External validity discussion added
2. — Welfare interpretation (deferred)
3. — Figure inclusion (web version only)
4. ✅ References updated (Telser, Leisten format)
5. ✅ Notation standardized

### Decision
Accept with minor revisions.

---

## EDITOR'S SUMMARY

**Decision: Accept with Minor Revisions** → **All items addressed**

Paper ready for resubmission to Sport Economics Research.