The point is, your professor's fame made the journal choose him as a reviewer, you don't have the fame, at least at that time. To be a reviewer is just a proof of being "famous" (though not necessarily) in a certain field, used as a judgement by INS. So, all in all, work for you professor can't prove you are acknowledged by the editors. Got it? Just like if you work for a NSF grant doesn't mean you have the ability to obtain the grant, you prof. has.
your professor is the reviewer
not you. though you worked for your professor in the actual reviewing.
The point is, your professor's fame made the journal choose him as a reviewer, you don't have the fame, at least at that time. To be a reviewer is just a proof of being "famous" (though not necessarily) in a certain field, used as a judgement by INS. So, all in all, work for you professor can't prove you are acknowledged by the editors. Got it? Just like if you work for a NSF grant doesn't mean you have the ability to obtain the grant, you prof. has.
The point is, your professor's fame made the journal choose him as a reviewer, you don't have the fame, at least at that time. To be a reviewer is just a proof of being "famous" (though not necessarily) in a certain field, used as a judgement by INS. So, all in all, work for you professor can't prove you are acknowledged by the editors. Got it? Just like if you work for a NSF grant doesn't mean you have the ability to obtain the grant, you prof. has.
所有跟帖:
•
Another kind of reviewer
-LAwac02-
♀
(122 bytes)
()
01/08/2005 postreply
17:30:30