|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K***8
发帖数: 89 | 1 USCIS has determined that the petitioner has provided sufficient
documentation to establish the beneficiary has met the following regulatory
criteria:
IV: judge
V: contribution
VI: authorship.
似乎承认了，可是后来：
It is a logical conclusion that scientific journals must reply on many
scientists to review these manuscirpts, making this a routine activity for
scientists. Therefore, peer-review is not, by itself, indicative of, or
consistent with being in the very top of a field or sustained national or
international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from
others in the field it cannot be concluded that this evidence reflects the
petitioner is in the very top of the field or has sustained national or
international acclaim.
大家有没有遇到这种情况，有没有建议？谢谢 | C********7
发帖数: 1035 | 2 需要证明你的peer-review的杰出：
1.editor letter来亲口证明你的outstanding以及杂志挑选reviewer的严格标准.
2.给牛杂志审稿的记录，杂志牛--〉审稿人牛。 | i******t
发帖数: 22541 | | K***8
发帖数: 89 | 4 18次。
有editor的信，吹了吹杂志又多牛，选择的ｒｅｖｉｅｗｅｒ标准有多高。
档次一般，ＩＦ２左右。
【在 i******t 的大作中提到】
: 审了多少次？
: 都什么档次的？
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
