m******c
发帖数: 2248 | 1 EB1A弱case, TSCnon-PP, RFE by #100.
Background：
国内硕士, 美国Top15 Univ. Ph.D in biomedical science, 现在post-doc一年半。
1st Author Publications 5: 4 in English (IF分别是 3, 5, 6, 9), 它引少了些，
共30次(今天查了一下, 新加的和以前没发现的共增加了12个它引, 此外还新发现2,3个
网站报道我的文章，比如newsrx), 1 in Chinese, 它引40次。
2nd或3rd Author Publications 8: 3 in English (IF分别是5, 9, 17), 文章比较新
它引共3次。5 in Chinese,这个基本是烂文章，它引也只有3次。
Reviews: 22 manuscripts for 6 journals (现增加为28篇for 8 journals).
Recommendation letters: 6 (4 independent）,5美国1加拿大，全是faculties,无业
界。
PL10页，claimed 了 authorship，contribution and judgment.
版上名律师给办的，6月file到TSC，10月18号 RFE by IO #100 (拜读版上chestnut和
disaimisong的大作，及置顶的IO名单吧（更新到10/21/2011)，发现伊是个惊悚的杀手
!）.给了84天回复。
承认了authorship and judgment but not contribution. 关于contribution，信上是
这么写的
Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic or business-related contributions of major significance in you
field.
The petitioner has provided the following:
------ Your work has been cited 76 times
------ You have submitted 6 letters of support
------ You were the first to demonstrate that XXXXXXX
------ You suggested for the first time that YYYYYY in this pathway
------ You were the first to show that ZZZZZZZ
This criterion has NOT been met because the evidence submitted does not show
that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major
significance in the field of endeavor. Many of the letters were from
individuals who already knew you, and the letters were general in nature,
and did not establish your accomplishments are any greater that your peers.
In some of your letters of supports the words “very significant”, “
groundbreaking”, “novel discovery” were used: however these words alone
do not establish that your research is considered a major significance
within your field. Upon closer examination of your research it has been
categorized as “which suggests”, “potential”, and “promising treatment
”, “may provide”, and “it is possible”. While your research is helpful
and has helped further additional research, but the record does not
establish your research has made a major significance within your field. It
must be noted it is not enough to have made a first discovery, but it must
also be established these discoveries have made a major significance within
your field. To assist in determining whether her contributions are original
and OF MAJOR significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
(1) Objective documentary evidence of the significance of her contribution
to the field;
(2) Evidence of your work being implemented by others. Possible evidence may
include but is not limited to
(2-1) Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
(2-2) Licensed technology being used by others;
(2-3) Patents currently being utilized an shown to be significant to the
field.
(3) Any other relevant evidence
Note: letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about your contribution and must explain, in details, how the
contribution was original (not merely replicating the work of others) and
how the contributions were of "major" significance. General statements
regarding the importance of the endeavors are insufficient.
此外它还 Request for Translations: 说是提供的材料中有中文，需要翻译成英文，
并要提供certification。可是我们提交的材料都已经翻译了，一个同事在notarized
translation form上也签了字。估计它自己审材料的时候没看到吧。
怎么证明自己的contribution significant呢?看样子如果拿不出一些objective的
evidence这个#100很难被说服阿。另外这个RFE没有提任何totality,正常么？
拜托各位给提提建议把。多谢多谢！！！ | z**********8
发帖数: 766 | 2 bless！
能否仔细再挖掘引用了你文章的内容里面，有无提及你工作的意义之类。争取再要几封
从欧洲国家的独立推荐信试试。 | m******c
发帖数: 2248 | 3 嗯，谢谢。会仔细再看看挖掘一下，虽然我记得大部分引用都是method或者是引用我的
results，没有过多评论。
推荐信能找的都找了，欧洲的哥们显然不如北美的热情，要么说不行，要么不回信。只
有后者脸皮再试一下子了。
这个IO100我说的authorship和judgement过了，contribution没过，压根没提totality
的事情，希望回复后他不会再在这个上面做文章。
【在 z**********8 的大作中提到】
: bless！
: 能否仔细再挖掘引用了你文章的内容里面，有无提及你工作的意义之类。争取再要几封
: 从欧洲国家的独立推荐信试试。
| e******r
发帖数: 9977 | 4 先bless一下
兄台这个我觉得问题可能出在
1. 推荐信没搞好
2.citation数不符合io的心意
建议增加独立推荐人至少加两个,多多益善;把什么may,will,potential之类的词
都去掉了;具体谈谈你干了什么导致他们是如何的崇拜你
其实如果citation不多,最好别区分自引他引,给个总数的好.把你新增加的citation给
出来,并证明会越来越多
totality这个,建议你也准备一下,增加一些百分比,有被无换嘛
仅供参考
totality
【在 m******c 的大作中提到】
: 嗯，谢谢。会仔细再看看挖掘一下，虽然我记得大部分引用都是method或者是引用我的
: results，没有过多评论。
: 推荐信能找的都找了，欧洲的哥们显然不如北美的热情，要么说不行，要么不回信。只
: 有后者脸皮再试一下子了。
: 这个IO100我说的authorship和judgement过了，contribution没过，压根没提totality
: 的事情，希望回复后他不会再在这个上面做文章。
| m******c
发帖数: 2248 | 5 您说的很有道理。推荐信6封（4封independent)，改到最后自己都疲劳了。里面确实是
有may possible之类的，可能是写paper的职业习惯把。:( response准备再搞2封
independent,1封非independent。措辞上一定注意。
它引不多是肯定的，可Initial搞的都是它引，RFE改成total不会引起新的麻烦吧。
现在统计它引共有86，total有106。
您提到的这个百分比怎么搞？谢谢。
【在 e******r 的大作中提到】
: 先bless一下
: 兄台这个我觉得问题可能出在
: 1. 推荐信没搞好
: 2.citation数不符合io的心意
: 建议增加独立推荐人至少加两个,多多益善;把什么may,will,potential之类的词
: 都去掉了;具体谈谈你干了什么导致他们是如何的崇拜你
: 其实如果citation不多,最好别区分自引他引,给个总数的好.把你新增加的citation给
: 出来,并证明会越来越多
: totality这个,建议你也准备一下,增加一些百分比,有被无换嘛
: 仅供参考
| y******y
发帖数: 676 | 6 我和你几乎同一天收到的ＲＦＥ，内容惊人的一致。我也有中文翻译的问题，请问你交
的中文文章都全文翻译了吗？我当时只附上文章全文，最后一页一般都有英文摘要，Ｉ
Ｏ说不行。 | m******c
发帖数: 2248 | 7 恐怕没有人做全文翻译吧。只翻译了题目，作者，摘要，附上了translation的
certificate。这个IO好像没看到。但是他并没有提全文的问题。看律师怎么说吧。
【在 y******y 的大作中提到】
: 我和你几乎同一天收到的ＲＦＥ，内容惊人的一致。我也有中文翻译的问题，请问你交
: 的中文文章都全文翻译了吗？我当时只附上文章全文，最后一页一般都有英文摘要，Ｉ
: Ｏ说不行。
| y******y
发帖数: 676 | 8 please keep me updated as to whether your lawyer will address the totality
issue in the response. Thanks.
【在 m******c 的大作中提到】
: 恐怕没有人做全文翻译吧。只翻译了题目，作者，摘要，附上了translation的
: certificate。这个IO好像没看到。但是他并没有提全文的问题。看律师怎么说吧。
| k**w
发帖数: 963 | | m******c
发帖数: 2248 | 10 June-6-11
【在 k**w 的大作中提到】
: 140哪天file的？
|
|
