bz求文献 Many Thanks!# Biology - 生物学
r*y
1 楼
很弱的case:
RD: 11/19/2010
RFE: 08/19/2011
IO: 1244(新来的？）
背景：化学Postdog，当时一作才三篇，独立引用60左右，Review 40左右。Claim
contribution, authorship and review. 幸运的是authorship竟然过了，不幸的是
contribution没过。
原文如下：(after citing all my referee letters) This criterion has not been
met because the evidence submitted does not show that the beneficiary's
contributions are considered to be of major significance in the field of
endeavor(套话！）It is apparent that the writers of your referee letters
consider the beneficiary's work important and significant. It is commendable
that current and former colleagues(and some independent referees)hold your
education and research in high regard, it cannot be determined that your
contributions are of major significance.(要更多独立推荐信的意思？）
原来以为这条最容易过的。highlight, most downloaded, most cited 的文章都有，
炸药奖的也应用过我的文章什么的，估计是我没有组织好。只是这个IO没有具体的质疑
我哪一条，让我摸不着头脑。
还有就是我当时的独立引用才60，现在已经100多了，在回复的时候我需要只回复
contribution还是其它的也要加强一下。还有两篇新文章和一本书的一章节。
RD: 11/19/2010
RFE: 08/19/2011
IO: 1244(新来的？）
背景：化学Postdog，当时一作才三篇，独立引用60左右，Review 40左右。Claim
contribution, authorship and review. 幸运的是authorship竟然过了，不幸的是
contribution没过。
原文如下：(after citing all my referee letters) This criterion has not been
met because the evidence submitted does not show that the beneficiary's
contributions are considered to be of major significance in the field of
endeavor(套话！）It is apparent that the writers of your referee letters
consider the beneficiary's work important and significant. It is commendable
that current and former colleagues(and some independent referees)hold your
education and research in high regard, it cannot be determined that your
contributions are of major significance.(要更多独立推荐信的意思？）
原来以为这条最容易过的。highlight, most downloaded, most cited 的文章都有，
炸药奖的也应用过我的文章什么的，估计是我没有组织好。只是这个IO没有具体的质疑
我哪一条，让我摸不着头脑。
还有就是我当时的独立引用才60，现在已经100多了，在回复的时候我需要只回复
contribution还是其它的也要加强一下。还有两篇新文章和一本书的一章节。
