d*******m 发帖数: 119 | 1 For EB1B, 在PL里面,在说到自己所在的field的时候,是自己随便说呢,还是有个规
范?如果有,哪里可以看到?我困惑主要是因为我同时在两个小领域,找不出一个大词来概括。
另外,我绝大部分的文章发表在同一个期刊上,查Journal Citation Report, its
Subject Categories 只有一项,如果要把这个期刊和其它的“本领域”的比,是不是
只能在同一个Subject Categories下面比?
比文章的引用的话,又是按照什么标准(或者什么trick)来决定peer papers?
和其他faculty比的话,除了那个The Chronicle Faculty Scholarly Productivity
Index,还有别的途径吗?
我有3个NASA & NSF research grants, 值得在PL (in Contributions?)中提吗?版上
没看到有相关的讨论。
sorry for so many questions. thanks a lot! | d*******m 发帖数: 119 | 2 any comments are appreciated.
词来概括。
【在 d*******m 的大作中提到】 : For EB1B, 在PL里面,在说到自己所在的field的时候,是自己随便说呢,还是有个规 : 范?如果有,哪里可以看到?我困惑主要是因为我同时在两个小领域,找不出一个大词来概括。 : 另外,我绝大部分的文章发表在同一个期刊上,查Journal Citation Report, its : Subject Categories 只有一项,如果要把这个期刊和其它的“本领域”的比,是不是 : 只能在同一个Subject Categories下面比? : 比文章的引用的话,又是按照什么标准(或者什么trick)来决定peer papers? : 和其他faculty比的话,除了那个The Chronicle Faculty Scholarly Productivity : Index,还有别的途径吗? : 我有3个NASA & NSF research grants, 值得在PL (in Contributions?)中提吗?版上 : 没看到有相关的讨论。
| k******e 发帖数: 8870 | 3 since most of ur papers are published in the same journal, u should be able
to use a big field to cover the two small fields that you are working in. as
for comparison,there is no standard method, so just use the one benefits u
the most. as for the grants, u surely should include them in ur PL.
词来概括。
【在 d*******m 的大作中提到】 : For EB1B, 在PL里面,在说到自己所在的field的时候,是自己随便说呢,还是有个规 : 范?如果有,哪里可以看到?我困惑主要是因为我同时在两个小领域,找不出一个大词来概括。 : 另外,我绝大部分的文章发表在同一个期刊上,查Journal Citation Report, its : Subject Categories 只有一项,如果要把这个期刊和其它的“本领域”的比,是不是 : 只能在同一个Subject Categories下面比? : 比文章的引用的话,又是按照什么标准(或者什么trick)来决定peer papers? : 和其他faculty比的话,除了那个The Chronicle Faculty Scholarly Productivity : Index,还有别的途径吗? : 我有3个NASA & NSF research grants, 值得在PL (in Contributions?)中提吗?版上 : 没看到有相关的讨论。
| o*********r 发帖数: 446 | 4 太值得在PL里提了,一定要说明NASA和NSF的评选标准证明这玩意儿多难拿。
BTW,您是PI/Co-PI吗?不是的话,还是就先不说了。 | d*******m 发帖数: 119 | 5 Yes, PI in 3 grants, and Co-I in other 3 grants.
thanks.
【在 o*********r 的大作中提到】 : 太值得在PL里提了,一定要说明NASA和NSF的评选标准证明这玩意儿多难拿。 : BTW,您是PI/Co-PI吗?不是的话,还是就先不说了。
| d*******m 发帖数: 119 | 6 Sorry, I am not sure I understand your points in your 3 posts. Could you
briefly explain? | b*******e 发帖数: 24532 | 7 100% YOUR CASE WILL BE APPROVED 3 DAYS AFTER SUBMISSION, hiahia
Bless!
【在 d*******m 的大作中提到】 : Yes, PI in 3 grants, and Co-I in other 3 grants. : thanks.
| d*******m 发帖数: 119 | 8 thanks! But my citation is not very strong: only 70 totally independent
citation.
【在 b*******e 的大作中提到】 : 100% YOUR CASE WILL BE APPROVED 3 DAYS AFTER SUBMISSION, hiahia : Bless!
| b*******e 发帖数: 24532 | 9 focus on those grants, let the IO forgets about that. And there are more
proofs than citation to prove your totality. Citation is only one factor if
you do not have others. In your case, keep writing everything you can about
grants, what is the critera to approve grant solictation, what the purpose
of such grants, what impact it could bring into , and what is the acceptance
rate for grant solication, blabla,
This is much stronger than citation!!!
【在 d*******m 的大作中提到】 : thanks! But my citation is not very strong: only 70 totally independent : citation.
| d*******m 发帖数: 119 | 10 thanks a lot for your encouraging words, and much helpful points!
if
about
acceptance
【在 b*******e 的大作中提到】 : focus on those grants, let the IO forgets about that. And there are more : proofs than citation to prove your totality. Citation is only one factor if : you do not have others. In your case, keep writing everything you can about : grants, what is the critera to approve grant solictation, what the purpose : of such grants, what impact it could bring into , and what is the acceptance : rate for grant solication, blabla, : This is much stronger than citation!!!
| b*******e 发帖数: 24532 | 11 刚刚一看,你连一个包子都没有
【在 d*******m 的大作中提到】 : thanks a lot for your encouraging words, and much helpful points! : : if : about : acceptance
| d*******m 发帖数: 119 | 12 不好意思。注册没多久,平时就潜水了,很少发贴。以后有了,包子送上。
【在 b*******e 的大作中提到】 : 刚刚一看,你连一个包子都没有
|
|