l*******4
发帖数: 58 | 1 最近投稿到行业领域顶级的期刊，2个审稿人评价都很好，编辑最终给的意见是直接录
用。想问下编辑发给我的论文录用邮件中的审稿人积极评价内容是否可以作为亮点写进
petition letter。具体审稿意见如下：
Reviewer 1:
The authors of this paper are well-known scientists in coherence optics. In
this paper, they introduced a Schell-type stationary medium with its degree
of potential’s correlation satisfies the Fractional Multi-Gaussian
function. Their results show that the new proposed stationary medium will
give rise to a sharp concave intensity apex in the scattered field and they
gave some potential applications, such as applications to energy counter
problems and particle manipulation by weakly scattered fields. Furthermore,
it is gratifying that the authors gave the descriptions of physically
realization for the new mediums.
The algebras and plots seem to be all right and reasonable. I think it
should be published as it stands.
Reviewer 2:
The authors present a partially coherent source or medium for controlling
light. There is a long history of papers like this being published. The
paper is novel and well written such that minor edits will make it
acceptable.Please see uploaded document for my comments.
请大家给予意见和讨论，对于该类审稿结果邮件中审稿专家比较积极和正面对我工作的
评价是否可以作为论证自己研究major contribution and significant impact。 |
w******n
发帖数: 13202 | 2 不成啊，这个不是公开的文件，而且不是已知人物，怎么可能成为法律证据，从而有任
何说服力？
In
degree
they
【在 l*******4 的大作中提到】
: 最近投稿到行业领域顶级的期刊，2个审稿人评价都很好，编辑最终给的意见是直接录
: 用。想问下编辑发给我的论文录用邮件中的审稿人积极评价内容是否可以作为亮点写进
: petition letter。具体审稿意见如下：
: Reviewer 1:
: The authors of this paper are well-known scientists in coherence optics. In
: this paper, they introduced a Schell-type stationary medium with its degree
: of potential’s correlation satisfies the Fractional Multi-Gaussian
: function. Their results show that the new proposed stationary medium will
: give rise to a sharp concave intensity apex in the scattered field and they
: gave some potential applications, such as applications to energy counter
|
c**********l
发帖数: 27 | |
m******9
发帖数: 349 | |
J********n
发帖数: 159 | |
w******n
发帖数: 13202 | 6 所有被发表的文章，必然都是得到reviewer的正面评价才能发表的，不然就是被拒了。
所以，所有人都可以找出reviewer的正面意见。那么既然所有人都有这样的证据，那么
也就不是能够证明突出的证据了。
而且，发表文章本身，已经被USCIS指明不过是常规工作而已。
【在 J********n 的大作中提到】
: 个人意见，可以用
: 反正文章都被录用
|
L**i
发帖数: 22365 | 7 不能用
如果是public的评论，可以用
这种非公开的，延伸不出来任何意义的，用了是打算招rfe么 |
c**n
发帖数: 463 | 8 至少不能直接用。
评审是匿名的。如果你在PL里说这是一个匿名的评价，IO可以质疑评价者的权威性。
如果觉得这审稿意见写的实在好，可以挪到推荐信里，看看是否有推荐人同意签。 |
H*******0
发帖数: 82 | 9 之前看见一个经验帖里提到reviewer的意见是很客观的评价，因为是匿名的同领域的
expert，很有意义，现在看了大家的回复，我也有些犹豫了。不用觉得可惜，因为实在
挖不出来更多亮点，用了又怕会像上面说的招rfe |
