| 查看: 2304 | 回复: 19 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
[交流]
对所谓砖家也不要太在意 已有17人参与
|
|||
|
本人现在美国读博士，前段时间给硕士老板写了个本子，前后花了2个晚上的时间。因为是作为应付差事来写的（主要是考虑到将来要回国的话，还得有人罩着），很多图都懒得画了。最后给报销了台笔记本，呵呵，真够廉价的。 硕士老板是985院校老师，从来没有申到自然科学基金，其他基金好像不少。最后结果，3A1B1C 资助60多万。至于他是不是找关系我就不知道了，我感觉应该是没那么大的能量。因为他也不是什么砖家，当初他的博士论文还是我读硕士的时候给他写的。 今天收到评审意见，我笑了。这些所谓砖家的评审意见，要是从conference reviewer的角度来说，狗屁都不是。基本上泛泛而谈， 比如最后的结论基本上是： “课题对该国内外相关研究情况作了细致的综述和分析,文献介绍非常全面，表明作者对该领域研究现状作了一定调研” ”申请书对研究中拟解决的问题和可行性进行了充分地分析论证，研究方案合理可行。 建议予以优先资助“ 呵呵，从此可以看出，每个砖家花在看评审书的时间上不会超过15分钟... 此外，所谓的砖家对相应的领域，一无所知，所以只能泛泛而谈。 给C的那个，连评审书估计都没看，提的问题我在申请书里反复说明了。 沾我现在大牛老板的光，我也给我们专业的top conference和期刊申过稿，看过领域内的牛人的评审意见。别人那叫一个认真，不过给出很仔细的建议，就连语法错误，图里面的小错误也都一一给指出来了。比如（有些信息删除了）： ==================================== blalbal ...说了一大堆技术意见，然后： The presentation is pretty good, but can still be improved. What follows is not complete, but it's pretty detailed. I'm giving you all this nit-picky feedback because I really like the paper, and I want it to be as perfect as possible. Please give the text a thorough editing pass to look for errors similar to what I list below. * The final paper will be in black and white, so you cannot refer to colors in the graphs (page x, Figure *******). Please refer to shades of gray. * In Section V subsection B, your explanation of how you chose the 10 applications is out of order and confusing. Please rework those two paragraphs so the reader isn't left wondering about how the 10 relate to the seven that you begin discussing in detail (things are clear by the end of the paragraph, but anything that confuses the reader gets in the way of the points you're trying to make). * There are far too few references for a paper on cache models. If you clean up your prose (eliminate some redundancy) and use less space for Figure x and Figure x (each would be readable even at the width of a single column), you will have room for more related work. Figure x could use much less space, too. You have many paragraphs with a single word on the last line -- modifying your prose to be more concise will also give you a much better layout (no more widows and orphans). * The references are inconsistent in format. Please give names consistently. Always give page numbers for conference and journal papers. Either always use a comma before the last author name in a list or always omit it. If you're going to give location information for one conference, you should do so for all (but I'd omit that -- easy enough to look up, and it's not essentially for tracking down a reference). Finally, I rather doubt that Harvard has a single system for all tech reports across the university. Please give the department and the report number. * Do not use references as if they were nouns in the text. They are not parts of speech! I know that many people do this, but it's a bad habit, and is completely illogical. Besides, if someone is citing your work, isn't it better to have your name show up in the text wrt that work? It's easier on the reader -- no need to flip back and forth to the references all the time. Again, you don't want to slow the reader down. * There are several punctuation errors, mostly due to extraneous or missing commas. - generally, you don't use a comma after "that", since it introduces a dependent clause. - funny spacing before period after "Out Boundary" on page x. - "i.e." and "e.g." are always parenthetical, which means that a comma has to come both before and after (the one after is consistently omitted in the paper). - there are some run-on sentences that are missing commas. "... is attenuated and the error of ******** increases by only 1%" needs a comma before the conjunction (page x), and "Table x, shows the errors ...." is two sentences strung together (page x). The latter needs a comma and a conjunction. - no comma should be placed between subject and verb, so "Table III, shows" needs no comma. This error occurs in several places. - "During the next time interval, T between the two accesses ...." either needs no comma or a comma after T, also. - no hyphen is used between an adverb and the adjective it modifies (only between two adjectives where the first modifies the second, and together they modify a noun), so "independently-collected" is wrong (lots of people -- even native speakers -- get this one wrong, usually when using the adverb "well", as in "well designed"  .- no comma is needed before "that", since it introduces a dependent clause. If what follows the comma is really parenthetical, you want to use "which", instead (page x). - "solving the *********, ...." needs no commas, since the information about what is being solved for is essential to the sentence (page x). * There are many grammatical errors with respect to agreement in number between subject and verb or between subject and a following pronoun. I'm including other typos/mistakes wrt singular/plural nouns, too. - (page x) "using a ... distributions" - (page x) "This data is" is wrong -- "data" is a plural noun (IEEE says so) - (page x) "The length of the arcs . . . are" -- "length" is singular, so "is" - (page x) "independent memory accesses streams" -- "access streams" is what you want - (page x) "based on the ... distribution" -- you're talking about more than one distribution, so make that noun plural - (page x) "xxx of the two xx and their proportion" has the same problem -- the two threads do not share one proportion of memory instructions - (pages xxx) "each ******** ... when they are********* ... including themselves" should use the singluar "it" and "itself" - "Table II, show" (no comma, noted above) needs a singular verb * "straightforward" is a single word (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straightforward) * "with a factor of ..." should be "by a factor of ..." * "using sparse sampled" -- should be "sparsely" * "harder to predict an more important interesting to study" needs to be reworked (page x * "is itself is" (page x) * most of the places that you use "if" you really want "when". "if" applies to situations contrary to fact, and then what follows must be in the subjunctive. * "*********" should be followed by "of" * "pairs********* " should either be "pairs of ************" or just "**********", since you're talking about two applications, not four * (page *****) "solver i a *******************" -- typo for "in" ======================================= 试问，国内的砖家看评审书，能做到这一步么？ 另外说说我对自然科学基金的看法。我给老板写申请书之前，看了去年院里15篇申请下来的自然科学基金。可以说，任何一篇拿到美国来，结果都是不予资助。 个人觉得国内的申请书有两大缺点： 1. 喜欢搞新名词，忽悠 2. 内容假大空 3. 没有新意 ======================================= 对于青椒的建议是，一开以跟踪国外的研究为主。看看你们领域的最好的5个研究小组都做些什么，不要盲目的跟国内的热点。另外，研究方法，内容有创新是最重要的，不要把自己的申请书写成工程性的研究。 ============================================= 我发文的目的不是显摆，而是希望青椒们不要太把这些砖家当回事，只要是能够跟踪哦国际的前沿，那在国内就是创新了。我也深恶痛绝国内的学霸... 祝大家好运吧。 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
材料求调剂
已经有11人回复
-
【求调剂】新能源材料本科，一志愿211，初试321
已经有4人回复
-
336求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
材料求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
材料工程322分
已经有7人回复
-
材料考研调剂
已经有5人回复
-
生物学308分求调剂（一志愿华东师大）
已经有4人回复
-
求生物学调剂
已经有8人回复
-
08生物与医药专硕初试346找调剂
已经有6人回复
-
生物学327，求调剂
已经有6人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 大家帮分析一下，国外导师这样回复有没有希望得到博后资助？谢谢！
已经有61人回复
- 27岁海归女硕，各位指点考博迷茫！！拍砖也欢迎
已经有36人回复
- 选择了，我太软弱了吗
已经有37人回复
- 强烈鄙视那些提出“该项目是前期工作的延续和提高”而不予资助的评审
已经有48人回复
- 请专家不要成为砖家
已经有20人回复
htchen
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1440.7
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 764
- 在线: 149.1小时
- 虫号: 314308
- 注册: 2007-02-25
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 凝聚态物理
3楼2010-08-27 21:05:37
pmsl
木虫 (著名写手)
院士
- 应助: 7 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 13448.2
- 散金: 3843
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 1985
- 在线: 404.3小时
- 虫号: 423152
- 注册: 2007-07-21
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 军事教育学
2楼2010-08-27 20:49:52
huasheng75
金虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1323.7
- 散金: 10
- 红花: 3
- 帖子: 317
- 在线: 157.7小时
- 虫号: 940459
- 注册: 2010-01-11
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 机器人学及机器人技术
4楼2010-08-27 21:14:41
9楼2010-08-27 22:38:51
