☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
DONTBESILLY (DONTBESILLY) 于 (Thu Aug 16 18:51:02 2012, 美东) 提到:
i ) The reference letters submitted all speak highly of the beneficiary;
however, make no reference to how the beneficiary’s work had already had a
wide impact on the field as a whole. The writers offer no detail about the
geographic scope of the impact of the beneficiary’s work, including numbers
of individuals or institutions who have implemented his research findings
and their specific locations. The letters offer no details of how processes
or procedures have changed at other research centers nationally or how
companies across the nation have adopted the beneficiary’s contributions
into their products.
－－这段都是讲recommendation letter的样子，本来想上油灯图，不知道是不是合适
。我打算要俩原来的references再写一letter，再向一editor要一letter，不知道够了
没。
ii ) The evidence offers no detail about the extent of this claimed
recognition, such as by naming specific individuals and institutions whose
work the beneficiary has influenced, or how, exactly, the beneficiary has
played a significant role in the work of others on at least a national scale.
－－感觉这段和第一段一模一样啊。该怎么区分对待呢？该上什么evidence呢？
iii) Publication of one’s findings is inherent to all researchers. The mere
publication of scholarly articles or research findings does not demonstrate
national or international acclaim. Moreover, the beneficiary’s authorship/
co-authorship of published articles may demonstrate that your research
efforts yielded some useful and valid results. However, it is apparent that
any article, in order to be accepted in a scientific journal for publication
, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does
not follow that every scientist whose scholarly research is accepted for
publication has made a major contribution to his field. The record does not
establish that the beneficiary’s published articles have garnered the
attention of other professional throughout the field such that his
publications can be deemed consistent with national or international
recognition.
－－这个要强调什么呢？我发现的重要性？citations？
iv ) Although you have eleven authored/co-authored papers, some of which
were published in highly rated journals, publishing a paper is limited to
acclaimed authors. When viewed in conjunction with other researchers, your
publication record, with 140 citations at the time of filing, does not
demonstrate that your work has achieved a level of recognition that would
classify you as one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the
field, and that you have made contributions of major significance in the
field.
－这个打算上citation comparison和facult productivity comparison。
请指教。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bigbigbee (大蜜峰:苏律) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:12:14 2012, 美东) 提到:
你的case的材料整体组织上感觉很有问题啊,基本被从头批到脚,是最近3个月来大蜜看
到过的被IO如此痛批地最狠的一个case.
基本上第一部分就是说: 我读了你的推荐信,你里面吹得太惊天动地了,老子我不相信.
你给我详细说说凭啥说你惊天动地?
第2部分: 你说你发了paper就牛鼻了? 你发的那些paper我都没听到过,不是science,
nature, who knows.
第三部分,如泥自己所说, 单纯的列举数字毫无意义. 比如文科的同学,发两片文章就已
经可以是tenure track了,商学院的发1篇估计也能当AP,你得有比较.
解决你的问题:
第一部分, 摆事实,说明你确实make significant impact.
第二部分: 摆事实做比较,也包含在第三部分的东西.
a
numbers
processes
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
A95627 (95627) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:14:32 2012, 美东) 提到:
大蜜，牛啊
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
elsevier (夏花) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:40:08 2012, 美东) 提到:
I。仔细读IO的意见，他不但要油灯图，而且要推荐信
II.和I不一样。要找具体的牛人牛机构，你把他们挑出来，列个表。
a
numbers
processes
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
elsevier (夏花) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:41:25 2012, 美东) 提到:
嘿嘿，你比IO还狠呢
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
DONTBESILLY (DONTBESILLY) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:42:29 2012, 美东) 提到:
有三部分啊。你是不是把第一部分和第二部分合在一起了？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
DONTBESILLY (DONTBESILLY) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:43:47 2012, 美东) 提到:
这个咋个列法啊？请指教
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
elsevier (夏花) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:46:16 2012, 美东) 提到:
把你的引用人，和引用单位整理出来，列个表。
另外，你那IV的对策也有些问题，重点不是要和别人对比citation的数量，而是挖掘你
的citation的质量。有细节的列出别人读了你的paper，到底有啥重要的发现
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
DONTBESILLY (DONTBESILLY) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:47:19 2012, 美东) 提到:
那我还要读cite我文章的文章了？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
A95627 (95627) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:50:24 2012, 美东) 提到:
我是把一些重要的引用文章里的句子勾出来了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
elsevier (夏花) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:50:35 2012, 美东) 提到:
依我看，你这rfe就是因为你没有读每一篇你的引用招来滴，写的太粗。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
DONTBESILLY (DONTBESILLY) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:51:34 2012, 美东) 提到:
请问这个该address哪个问题呢？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
A95627 (95627) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:52:33 2012, 美东) 提到:
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
DONTBESILLY (DONTBESILLY) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:52:38 2012, 美东) 提到:
我可以把第一个和第二个问题合并address吗？回答了第一个后，在第二个里说refer
第一个response
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
elsevier (夏花) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:57:04 2012, 美东) 提到:
我觉得最好分开。如果合起来，把两个问题都回答了，也是可以的。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
DONTBESILLY (DONTBESILLY) 于 (Thu Aug 16 19:59:07 2012, 美东) 提到:
好主意。谢谢。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
smalldonkeys (小毛驴) 于 (Thu Aug 16 20:05:49 2012, 美东) 提到:
大蜜现在比较专业.可以考虑成立个律师所乐!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
DONTBESILLY (DONTBESILLY) 于 (Thu Aug 16 20:22:38 2012, 美东) 提到:
可以大段才用我的PL的语句吗？我有俩文章是rapid communication and editor's
suggestion，想再highlight一下
