|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
k******e
发帖数: 8870 | 1 ☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Fri Jun 15 16:15:58 2012, 美东) 提到:
rfe on Day 15
backgroud:
土博，chemistry，烂校薄厚第三年。
paper: 26 (all english, 10 first-author, if： 0.5-6, 一半以上>4)
citation by submission (ISI): total 303, independent: 299
review 30 times for 25 paper for 12 journals (0.2-6)
被两篇review大段引用，几次被verticalnews或者newsrx报道，不过pl中只提了其中两
次VerticalNews，一篇hottest 25和一篇cover paper都没提。
5 independent support letter, 2 from us, 1 from china, france, greece.
老三样，contribution has not been met, 具体如下：
The letters submitted attest to the appreciation for the beneficiary’s work
in the field, describe the significance of the discoveries as ‘novel’,
that it ‘adds to our knowledge’, that is it ‘extremely important’, etc.
While the beneficiary’s research is no doubt of value, it does not follow
that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the pool
of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance to the
field as a whole. Research inherently must be shown to be original and
present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the
scientific community. The letters do not appear to describe specific
examples, accomplished by corroborative evidence, of how the beneficiary’s
work has been used and implemented in the field on a widespread scale,
successfully patented and commercialized for widespread use in the field, or
other such evidence of work that is not only original, but a contribution
major significance to the field as a whole.
The record describes the beneficiary’s work as being discussed/used by
other researchers, received coverage on the internet, etc. as evidence of
major contribution to the field as a whole. The publishing and presenting of
one’s work for review and testing by the scientific community is expected
of scientists and researchers. The fact that the beneficiary;s work has been
cited or used by other researchers does not necessarily establish the work
as a major contribution to the field as a whole. And online publications
such as VerticleNews, ScienceDaily or EurekaAlert, often rely on self-
submissions, and are literally updated daily. The record does not
demonstrate that every article or publication that appears on one of these
websites is indicative of contribution to the field of major significance.
The record also contains a significant amount of documentation generated by
the beneficiary himself attempting to demonstrate that his citation record
exceeds that average publication rates for various topics, years, that it
has been published in prominent journals, etc. and that this publication
record is evidence of contributions of major significance the field as a
whole. While it appears that the beneficiary’s published works has been
moderately cited and have received positive attentions from the field, the
record must demonstrate that the beneficiary has made contributions to the
field of major significance, not that he has exceeded the average citation
rate for the various topics, journals, etc. As well, several of the authors
of the letters of support appear to have published recent works, as well as
overall publication records, that significantly exceed that citation record
of the beneficiary. Such works would appear to be more indicative of
contributions of significance to the field as a whole than the published
works of the beneficiary. Work that is considered contributions of major
significance to the field as a whole should be able to be demonstrated by
ample, unsolicited, objective evidence of such contribution. Also, some of
the authors of the letters of support explain that their opinion has been
provide after a review of the beneficiary’s resume, papers, etc. It seems
reasonable to conclude that work that is considered contribution of major
significance to the field as a whole would already be familiar to experts in
the field, without the need for a review of the beneficiary’s resume,
papers, etc.
看起来比较麻烦，我把核心的一一摘下来：
1. it does not follow that every researcher who performs original research
that adds to the pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of
major significance to the field as a whole....
The letters do not appear to describe specific examples, accomplished by
corroborative evidence, of how the beneficiary’s work has been used and
implemented in the field on a widespread scale, successfully patented and
commercialized for widespread use in the field, or other such evidence of
work that is not only original, but a contribution major significance to the
field as a whole.推荐信自己写的，每一封推荐信都是针对一篇文章写的。也提到了
引用多少，被review讨论，以及推荐人根据我的成果做出了什么东西。
2.The publishing and presenting of one’s work for review and testing by the
scientific community is expected of scientists and researchers. The fact
that the beneficiary;s work has been cited or used by other researchers does
not necessarily establish the work as a major contribution to the field as
a whole. And online publications such as VerticleNews, ScienceDaily or
EurekaAlert, often rely on self-submissions, and are literally updated daily
. The record does not demonstrate that every article or publication that
appears on one of these websites is indicative of contribution to the field
of major significance.这个怎么弄，证明被讨论或者被报道的是top percent？
3.While it appears that the beneficiary’s published works has been
moderately cited and have received positive attentions from the field, the
record must demonstrate that the beneficiary has made contributions to the
field of major significance, not that he has exceeded the average citation
rate for the various topics, journals, etc. 我用了same topic搜索，证明我的引
用都是No 1 or 2，说我的是average的2-5倍，也算了我的paper在当年chemistry
paper里的percentile（2%-7%），是数据还不够好看么？
4.As well, several of the authors of the letters of support appear to have
published recent works, as well as overall publication records, that
significantly exceed that citation record of the beneficiary.这个我看以前有
人也收到过这个，tough啊
5.some of the authors of the letters of support explain that their opinion
has been provide after a review of the beneficiary’s resume, papers, etc.
It seems reasonable to conclude that work that is considered contribution of
major significance to the field as a whole would already be familiar to
experts in the field, without the need for a review of the beneficiary’s
resume, papers, etc.这是io的新视角么？不过说的有道理，我该怎么回复么？所有推
荐人都是引用了我的paper的。
欢迎任何建议和意见，先谢谢了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gsycl (十分) 于 (Fri Jun 15 16:52:22 2012, 美东) 提到:
关于第5点，你可以在推荐信里加句，因为你做的优秀，所以推荐人keep track of
your recent publications, 那么最好的keep track的方法就是read your updated cv
on the web site
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Fri Jun 15 16:56:27 2012, 美东) 提到:
good point, thanks a lot!
cv
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
elsevier (夏花) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:06:58 2012, 美东) 提到:
背景其实挺强的，架不住这个1136这么狠的推敲。
这个是1136的经典模板。
----
听起来说的都是推荐信的问题。所以啊，加推荐信是肯定的，
以前旧的推荐信哪儿不妥，改了再找人签字。这个io看来不喜欢太炫的词，要客观证据。
-----
INN1同学是1136手下rfe过得，个人认为他背景略逊于你。当时大家出了很多主意，
http://www.mitbbs.com/article/Immigration/32347897_3.html
你参考一下，肯定能过的。bless！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
junegt (六月的寄托) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:08:31 2012, 美东) 提到:
看来VerticleNews不能用了，你有没有介绍一下VerticleNews是如何挑选文章报道的呢
？还有VerticleNews的影响力，流量等
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
junegt (六月的寄托) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:09:21 2012, 美东) 提到:
mark
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:14:03 2012, 美东) 提到:
谢谢夏花mm的鼓励，我正在研究inn1的rfe，落叶版上的人真好。
据。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:16:04 2012, 美东) 提到:
我附了关于verticalnews的介绍，但是没有说他们怎么挑选文章的，这个信息能查到么？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
junegt (六月的寄托) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:19:32 2012, 美东) 提到:
The record also contains a significant amount of documentation generated by
the beneficiary himself attempting to demonstrate that his citation record
exceeds that average publication rates for various topics, years, that it
has been published in prominent journals, etc. and that this publication
record is evidence of contributions of major significance the field as a
whole
你除了手动计算自己的引用ranking，有没有和ISI ESI（Essential Science
Indicators）的专业引用percentile比较一下
你说你的paper在当年chemistry paper里的percentile是2%-7%，这也是你自己算的？
ISI-ESI只有1% 和10%的引用率啊！
尽量减少自己的计算比较好，会客观一些
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
junegt (六月的寄托) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:21:34 2012, 美东) 提到:
这我就不知道，等其他同学解疑。
我知道NewsRX有自己的介绍，你没有找到NewsRX上你的报道？
么？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:23:01 2012, 美东) 提到:
嗯，我知道你的意思，但是这不是老问题嘛，不够1%，不止10%，所以我就直接用web
of science把全年的chemistry paper按citation排列，然后算我的排名。应该是没有
问题的吧，他也没有质疑我的排名方法。
by
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gsycl (十分) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:24:12 2012, 美东) 提到:
这点很重要，挑选标准可以证明他们不是随随便便一片文章就能上的，他们只选top x%
的， 你的选上了所以你优秀。尽量查查有没有其他文献介绍了verticalnews的标准.
么？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:24:39 2012, 美东) 提到:
newsrx报道过我的一篇文章，不过因为引用少，所以也没放在pl里。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gsycl (十分) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:26:11 2012, 美东) 提到:
新加的信里就不要出现average类的词了，用top多少来代替吧。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
junegt (六月的寄托) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:27:47 2012, 美东) 提到:
我想第一条是最难的，要找些推荐人，他们应用过你的试验方法，或在你的发现基础上
做出进一步的工作。我目前只有一封推荐信提到了这一项，希望遇到nice一点的IO。
另外，你找的推荐人是否太牛了,找几个AP吧。看IO给你的建议：As well, several of
the authors ...have published recent works, as well as overall publication
records, that significantly exceed that citation record of the beneficiary.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
junegt (六月的寄托) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:30:29 2012, 美东) 提到:
对于第5条，“Also, some of the authors of the letters of support explain
that their opinion has been provide after a review of the beneficiary’s
resume, papers, etc. ”
我觉得你改改推荐信提法就可以。给你一个我推荐信里的句子。
Although I have never met Dr. XXX personally, his outstanding researches on
molecular mechanisms of XXX have drawn my attention for a long time
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:31:47 2012, 美东) 提到:
嗯，估计还得要几封新的推荐信。
on
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
junegt (六月的寄托) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:34:34 2012, 美东) 提到:
我前段时间也为这个发愁，后来枪兄给了个建议，就是把几个相关的paper放在一起介
绍，最后把几篇文章的引用，和媒体报道一一列出，引用不好看的就不提引用，光说媒
体报道（毕竟有一些近期发表的文章，引用低是可以理解的）
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Fri Jun 15 17:58:00 2012, 美东) 提到:
我之前也想过这个办法，不过最后还是放弃了，这次倒是可以考虑这么来整理。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
flytome (JasmineTea) 于 (Fri Jun 15 20:51:43 2012, 美东) 提到:
Another RFE by 1136!
You have such a strong case.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
huntrui (黄昏) 于 (Fri Jun 15 21:03:45 2012, 美东) 提到:
bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
ychen44 (ychen) 于 (Fri Jun 15 21:10:28 2012, 美东) 提到:
Big blessings!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Lallene (CCC) 于 (Fri Jun 15 23:57:18 2012, 美东) 提到:
是啊，这么强的case都rfe～
这个1136可以作为大家认可的杀手了。
我也被他ref，后来再被他据，痛啊！lz提到的是这家伙的惯用模板。没有objective的
evidence证明你的contribution都没用。即使再加几封推荐信都没有用。
不过Lz的case足够强了再深挖一下关于自己rsearch的亮点应该没问题！
bless～
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Freezesun200 (Freezesun2009) 于 (Sat Jun 16 02:23:46 2012, 美东) 提到:
rfe on Day 15
backgroud:
土博，chemistry，烂校薄厚第三年。
paper: 26 (all english, 10 first-author, if： 0.5-6, 一半以上>4)
citation by submission (ISI): total 303, independent: 299
review 30 times for 25 paper for 12 journals (0.2-6)
被两篇review大段引用，几次被verticalnews或者newsrx报道，不过pl中只提了其中两
次VerticalNews，一篇hottest 25和一篇cover paper都没提。
5 independent support letter, 2 from us, 1 from china, france, greece.
这个比一些通过的强，我觉得比我的强。
这个签证官很“挑”，但个人觉得有些地方很中肯，给我们很多启示。其实很多RFE不
给真正的原因（就像有时候同行间审稿），而这份报告细致明确的列了具体原因，值得
重点研究一下。不过能列这么多细节，说明这个官真的很狠。 我可能也会遭到类似RFE
，这里分析一下，也算为自己做准备。不知道申请人材料的具体内容，有些地方可能偏
颇。感谢楼主分享RFE的内容。
您的case挺强，碰到能挑的人，好好组织材料，针对性的回答，祝通过！
老三样，contribution has not been met, 具体如下：
The letters submitted attest to the appreciation for the beneficiary’s work
in the field, describe the significance of the discoveries as ‘novel’,
that it ‘adds to our knowledge’, that is it ‘extremely important’, etc.
提交信中证实 受益者的工作受到赞成，认可和喜欢，描述了发现的重要性用“新颖”
，“增加了知识”，“及其重要”等。
这些词都会被签证官用来作靶子，挑刺的地方。看下面怎么挑的。
While the beneficiary’s research is no doubt of value, it does not follow
that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the pool
of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance to the
field as a whole. Research inherently must be shown to be original and
present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the
scientific community.
签证官不厌其烦的强调: 研究有价值，有原创性，有好处是共性，是干这一行的内在基
本要求。但这些不一定能说明很重要：major significance. 上面那些描述的词证明前
者，不能证明后者。下面说明为什么。
The letters do not appear to describe specific
examples, accomplished by corroborative evidence, of how the beneficiary’s
work has been used and implemented in the field on a widespread scale,
successfully patented and commercialized for widespread use in the field, or
other such evidence of work that is not only original, but a contribution
major significance to the field as a whole.
这是最最重要的部分了。 这直接告诉了我们：“我就想这3类材料，只有这些材料才能
证明major significance. ” 只说original, benifiting, new knowledge不够，要有
具体例子+支持证据！
具体3类材料： （1） 被他人广泛使用或实施； （2）为广泛应用成功专利和商业化；
（3） 其他同等效力证据。
个人认为，难中之难是“广泛”，何谓广泛？签证官心中的称是什么样的？如果他们非
挑刺，总能说不广泛，只能说自己已经尽力而为了。
The record describes the beneficiary’s work as being discussed/used by
other researchers, received coverage on the internet, etc. as evidence of
major contribution to the field as a whole. The publishing and presenting of
one’s work for review and testing by the scientific community is expected
of scientists and researchers. The fact that the beneficiary;s work has been
cited or used by other researchers does not necessarily establish the work
as a major contribution to the field as a whole.
签证官又来了，他在重复类似的话: 工作被别人讨论，网络报道，都是研究的“内在”
特性。换句话说：那些网络就是要报道大家工作的， 报道了本身不能说明major
significance. 这些逻辑思维我个人觉得很正常，他们对这些网站根本不了解的。 那
什么的能说明呢？后面签证官给了答案。
And online publications
such as VerticleNews, ScienceDaily or EurekaAlert, often rely on self-
submissions, and are literally updated daily. The record does not
demonstrate that every article or publication that appears on one of these
websites is indicative of contribution to the field of major significance.
又来了。一样的理。
The record also contains a significant amount of documentation generated by
the beneficiary himself attempting to demonstrate that his citation record
exceeds that average publication rates for various topics, years, that it
has been published in prominent journals, etc. and that this publication
record is evidence of contributions of major significance the field as a
whole. While it appears that the beneficiary’s published works has been
moderately cited and have received positive attentions from the field, the
record must demonstrate that the beneficiary has made contributions to the
field of major significance, not that he has exceeded the average citation
rate for the various topics, journals, etc.
As well, several of the authors
of the letters of support appear to have published recent works, as well as
overall publication records, that significantly exceed that citation record
of the beneficiary. Such works would appear to be more indicative of
contributions of significance to the field as a whole than the published
works of the beneficiary.
这个说的很明确：出版物方面的数据不能证明major significance. 这个可能受到网上
流行的和average比较启发而做的。 但是个人觉得要特别小心。比如说，高4倍，就是
extraordinary或major significance吗？其实个人觉得很难直接挂钩。也就容易被来
挑刺。
Work that is considered contributions of major
significance to the field as a whole should be able to be demonstrated by
ample, unsolicited, objective evidence of such contribution.
又一个最最重要的部分了。这也是总结陈词。 他就是要：大量的、不是主动寻求的、
客观的证明major significance的证据。大量就是上面的广泛，签证官总会给自己预留
词语为可能拒绝找理由---太狠了。
Also, some of
the authors of the letters of support explain that their opinion has been
provide after a review of the beneficiary’s resume, papers, etc. It seems
reasonable to conclude that work that is considered contribution of major
significance to the field as a whole would already be familiar to experts in
the field, without the need for a review of the beneficiary’s resume,
papers, etc.
看来签证官够罗嗦，都总结报告了，还言犹未尽。但是告诉来者应该注意什么了。
看起来比较麻烦，我把核心的一一摘下来：
1. it does not follow that every researcher who performs original research
that adds to the pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of
major significance to the field as a whole....
The letters do not appear to describe specific examples, accomplished by
corroborative evidence, of how the beneficiary’s work has been used and
implemented in the field on a widespread scale, successfully patented and
commercialized for widespread use in the field, or other such evidence of
work that is not only original, but a contribution major significance to the
field as a whole.推荐信自己写的，每一封推荐信都是针对一篇文章写的。也提到了
引用多少，被review讨论，以及推荐人根据我的成果做出了什么东西。
这是过去的。忘掉。要新推荐信。
2.The publishing and presenting of one’s work for review and testing by the
scientific community is expected of scientists and researchers. The fact
that the beneficiary;s work has been cited or used by other researchers does
not necessarily establish the work as a major contribution to the field as
a whole. And online publications such as VerticleNews, ScienceDaily or
EurekaAlert, often rely on self-submissions, and are literally updated daily
. The record does not demonstrate that every article or publication that
appears on one of these websites is indicative of contribution to the field
of major significance.这个怎么弄，证明被讨论或者被报道的是top percent？
看他们选的标准。请他们 写信证明。
3.While it appears that the beneficiary’s published works has been
moderately cited and have received positive attentions from the field, the
record must demonstrate that the beneficiary has made contributions to the
field of major significance, not that he has exceeded the average citation
rate for the various topics, journals, etc. 我用了same topic搜索，证明我的引
用都是No 1 or 2，说我的是average的2-5倍，也算了我的paper在当年chemistry
paper里的percentile（2%-7%），是数据还不够好看么？
没做过这个，没经验。
4.As well, several of the authors of the letters of support appear to have
published recent works, as well as overall publication records, that
significantly exceed that citation record of the beneficiary.这个我看以前有
人也收到过这个，tough啊
这个只当没看到。反驳的作用不大。大家明白的事: 他们几十年的教授，怎么比啊？精
力放在证明自己优秀上。
5.some of the authors of the letters of support explain that their opinion
has been provide after a review of the beneficiary’s resume, papers, etc.
It seems reasonable to conclude that work that is considered contribution of
major significance to the field as a whole would already be familiar to
experts in the field, without the need for a review of the beneficiary’s
resume, papers, etc.这是io的新视角么？不过说的有道理，我该怎么回复么？所有推
荐人都是引用了我的paper的。
欢迎任何建议和意见，先谢谢了。
就说他们是你的工作让他们注意到你的。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
ratluos (小老鼠) 于 (Sat Jun 16 02:44:51 2012, 美东) 提到:
非常有信息量。多谢！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Sat Jun 16 13:14:01 2012, 美东) 提到:
pat, let us beat this io to death!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Sat Jun 16 13:16:36 2012, 美东) 提到:
非常感谢你的分析，这个rfe的核心就是of major significance,想听听大家都有什么
建议。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Freezesun200 (Freezesun2009) 于 (Sat Jun 16 14:44:20 2012, 美东) 提到:
这个就像碰到一个挑剔的审稿人，怎么能convince他你的工作值得发表。这里就是
convince他major significance是千真万确的， 我们是名副其实的真材料。
所以我觉得一个概念要不停的在大脑里闪：说服签证官。 这要思考一下他们的心理。
现在我们假设我们自己是签证官。 我们去判案，我们判案的依据是什么？我们有责任
告诉公众我们判案的依据，然后我们根据强有力的依据做出无偏见的决定。 我觉得这
个官给的材料，就是非常具体明确地给了他的依据。这就是提到的两个最最重要的部分
。个人建议回复框架（抛砖引玉了）：
真诚感激审阅，感激明确告诉要补充什么样的材料。
一一认真地呈示证明major significance的材料 ：
1. Ample
(a) used or implemented by others.
(b) patented or commercialized
(c) other evidence
2. unsolicited
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
3. objective
(a)...
(b)...
(c)...
这个看起来呆板，其实合理巧妙的语言应用可能会消除这个不足。好处是，你要什么我
给什么，最to the point.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Sat Jun 16 15:12:40 2012, 美东) 提到:
是这么个理，送个双黄包。
问题就在于什么样的证据叫ample,unsolicited,objective?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Freezesun200 (Freezesun2009) 于 (Sat Jun 16 16:46:10 2012, 美东) 提到:
多谢。这个问题我一直在探索。在我最近发的一个号召贴里明确地提出过，可是基本没
人响应(除了大蜜外）。就是到底什么样的证据证明什么样的contribution of major
significance.
回答您的情况，现在就是上面有人提的挖掘闪光点了。大家觉得您的case挺强，我想就
是根据您提供的，应该能挖掘出足够的证据。
举几个例子：
* 比如说，一半以上，IF>4. 如果这些杂志在某领域能排名靠前，我觉得就可以说：有
十几篇文章发在顶级杂志上，算是Ample.
*您的citation统计数据肯定能找出很多Ample， or widely blah blah.
*找媒体报道写推荐信，告知是他们挑选的，不是您solicited.
*hottest 25 and cover paper 都是强的objective documentary evidence
对于objective一项，可以说上面所有的材料都是objective,稍作深度推理。
这个签证官给人的感觉是直爽人，逻辑性强，讲道理的；一一应答，他应该能被说服，
个人觉得比那种阴险深刻不露心思只用官方模版贴的应该好对付一点。正针对这一点，
个人觉得要用自己的语言回答（不用别人模板），有问有答，礼尚往来。
paper: 26 (all english, 10 first-author, if： 0.5-6, 一半以上>4)
citation by submission (ISI): total 303, independent: 299
review 30 times for 25 paper for 12 journals (0.2-6)
被两篇review大段引用，几次被verticalnews或者newsrx报道，不过pl中只提了其中两
次VerticalNews，一篇hottest 25和一篇cover paper都没提。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Sat Jun 16 23:02:14 2012, 美东) 提到:
嗯，你说的有道理，其实io也承认了我的文章是发在prominent journals，但是他还是
认为这个不足以证明contribution of major significance。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Freezesun200 (Freezesun2009) 于 (Sat Jun 16 23:40:44 2012, 美东) 提到:
要证明major significance:
(1) 找杂志录文标准，只要有Significant, breakthrough，important advance,
invoking wide interest in wide fields等词就行；otherwise
(2) 找杂志负责人写个证明信，把这些词写进去，就可以了。
这个签证官就想看到这样的客观材料来的词，这样给他答复他应该没话说了吧。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
KFN (小胖猪) 于 (Sun Jun 17 00:28:27 2012, 美东) 提到:
bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bigbigbee (大蜜蜂: 心诚则灵) 于 (Sun Jun 17 01:27:06 2012, 美东) 提到:
You will pass in the end but by now you have to dedicate on another
presentation in the coming month. Do not hurry up on submitting the response
. Mainly your RLs have been a weak point so that IO picks on you and
challenged your other evidence. When you response, do not mention anything
weak , e.g. they know u only by looking at your resume. No, never ever made
such kind of statement. The Rl should state that you have been international
recognized sustainably , ru lei guan er!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Sun Jun 17 10:04:54 2012, 美东) 提到:
这个主意不错，我仔细研究下。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Sun Jun 17 10:11:16 2012, 美东) 提到:
推荐信肯定是要重新写的，之前没有意识到那个问题，看有的模板是那么写的，我也就
跟着这么写了，也没想那么多，这也算是教训吧。
不过我还是不太明白他说的要更多的细节。我个人是觉得我的已经包括了很多细节，包
括文章的引用情况，别人关于我的文章的大段评论，以及推荐人明确的说根据我的文章
做出了什么成果，实在想不出来还有哪些细节可以写进去的。
response
anything
made
international
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
alsin (as) 于 (Sun Jun 17 11:35:41 2012, 美东) 提到:
吹吹你的工作对整个行业或领域的影响，从大方向上吹
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Sun Jun 17 12:13:57 2012, 美东) 提到:
请问你说的大方向是指什么？推荐信这事真是让人抓狂。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
steventian (pauline) 于 (Sun Jun 17 12:14:05 2012, 美东) 提到:
Big Bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
kayabao (baobao) 于 (Sun Jun 17 17:07:56 2012, 美东) 提到:
同bless，来这里取经，希望gq2530顺利
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Sun Jun 17 22:27:42 2012, 美东) 提到:
共勉！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Freezesun200 (Freezesun2009) 于 (Sun Jun 17 23:53:04 2012, 美东) 提到:
alsin说的大方向应该是“整个行业或领域”
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
gq2530 (gq2530) 于 (Mon Jun 18 16:44:58 2012, 美东) 提到:
恩，我再想想
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
iamright (唻哥泡泡糖) 于 (Mon Jun 18 16:46:09 2012, 美东) 提到:
这么强的case。。。。
为什么啊 ！！why！ | i******t
发帖数: 22541 | | f*****e
发帖数: 1889 | 3 多谢kathylee做合集. 我也在回复1136的RFE. | i******t
发帖数: 22541 | 4 发上来大家看看吸取点经验啊
【在 f*****e 的大作中提到】
: 多谢kathylee做合集. 我也在回复1136的RFE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
