p***t
发帖数: 616 | 1 TSC，收到RFE。contribution和authorship没过：
Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific. scholarly. artistic.
athletic. or business-related contributions ofmajor significance in the
field.
The petitioner has provided:
? Numerous expert testimonies from others in the beneficiary's field of
expertise .
? Numerous articles that the petitioner claims references that others in
the field are implementing the findings of the beneficiary.
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. The petitioner provided numerous
testimonial letters as evidence of major significant contributions in the
field of endeavor. Even though the testimonial letters show that the
beneficiary has been influential to his field, additional evidence is
required to determine if the beneficiary's contributions are original and of
major significance. To assist in determining whether the beneficiary's
contributions are original and of major significance in the field, the
petitioner may submit:
? Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the beneficiary's
contribution to the field.
? Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently
consider the beneficiary's work important.
? Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the
beneficiary's contributions ofmajor significance.
? Evidence that the beneficiary's major significant contribution(s) has
provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
? • Evidence of the beneficiary's work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to:
? o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary's products;
? o Licensed technology being used by others;
? o Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the
field.
Note: Letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about the beneficiary's contribution and must explain, in detail ,
how the contribution was "original" (not merely replicating the work of
others) and how they were of "major" significance. General statements
regarding the importance of the endeavors which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.
这个是不是说推荐信不够具体？请指教。有什么可以加强的？已提交6封推荐信（5个独
立）。
Evidence ofthe beneficiary's authorship ofscholarIv articles in the field,
in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
The petitioner has provided evidence such as:
? A photocopy of the beneficiary's Curriculum Vitae.
? Photocopies of the first pages of English and Chinese research articles
by the beneficiary.
? Evidence of presentations and abstracts.
? Photocopy of a citations list.
This criterion has not been met because the evidence does not show that the
articles were published in professional publications, trade publications, or
other major media. Additional evidence is required to show the articles
were published in a professional, trade or other major media publication. To
assist in determining that the publications qualify as professional or
trade publications or other major media, the petitioner may submit:
• Documentary evidence to establish that the publications in which the
articles appear are professional publications, trade publications, or other
major media.
o Such evidence could include circulation information. If circulation
information is submitted, it should be specific to the media format in which
it was published. That is, if the article was published online, the
evidence must relate to the website. If it was published in print, the
evidence must relate to the printed publication.
所有文章已经把首页、杂志介绍、JCR排名都提供了。什么算circulation information
？journal的网页介绍和publisher已经介绍了呀。 |
z***b
发帖数: 4667 | 2 推荐信不具体
杂志信息不全吧（估计是IO看漏了）
in
show
【在 p***t 的大作中提到】
: TSC，收到RFE。contribution和authorship没过：
: Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific. scholarly. artistic.
: athletic. or business-related contributions ofmajor significance in the
: field.
: The petitioner has provided:
: ? Numerous expert testimonies from others in the beneficiary's field of
: expertise .
: ? Numerous articles that the petitioner claims references that others in
: the field are implementing the findings of the beneficiary.
: This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show
|
s*********u
发帖数: 2535 | 3 1. 模版ＲＦＥ了，加推荐信，猛吹你工作的影响。独立推荐信最好，更客观。再挖挖
闪光点。bless
2. 奇怪，你的发表文章的杂志不正规？
你的背景是咋样的了呢。 |
c*****u
发帖数: 42 | |
F******1
发帖数: 228 | 5 什么背景？
in
show
【在 p***t 的大作中提到】
: TSC，收到RFE。contribution和authorship没过：
: Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific. scholarly. artistic.
: athletic. or business-related contributions ofmajor significance in the
: field.
: The petitioner has provided:
: ? Numerous expert testimonies from others in the beneficiary's field of
: expertise .
: ? Numerous articles that the petitioner claims references that others in
: the field are implementing the findings of the beneficiary.
: This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show
|
c*********7
发帖数: 19373 | |
p***t
发帖数: 616 | 7 journal都是正规的，几篇领域top 3的，一半按engenfactor可以在top 18% of all
journals
journal：25 （23英文）
conference：13
做过1个journal的Guest Editor，1 journal editorial board member, 3 conference
organizing member (都写
support letter了)
推荐信：6（独立的5个，加1个phd老板）
引用：不太高，刚过120（自引占了一部分，所以没区分）
review: 42
TSC, 追加了PP， EB1A
【在 s*********u 的大作中提到】
: 1. 模版ＲＦＥ了，加推荐信，猛吹你工作的影响。独立推荐信最好，更客观。再挖挖
: 闪光点。bless
: 2. 奇怪，你的发表文章的杂志不正规？
: 你的背景是咋样的了呢。
|
s*********u
发帖数: 2535 | 8 是啥专业的呢，专业区别很大。看起来像ＣＳ或工科的？
再把杂志的信息给全点，甚至可以向编辑部要官方的证明。这些都好解决。
花点时间在contribution上吧，这个比较麻烦。
bless
【在 p***t 的大作中提到】
: journal都是正规的，几篇领域top 3的，一半按engenfactor可以在top 18% of all
: journals
: journal：25 （23英文）
: conference：13
: 做过1个journal的Guest Editor，1 journal editorial board member, 3 conference
: organizing member (都写
: support letter了)
: 推荐信：6（独立的5个，加1个phd老板）
: 引用：不太高，刚过120（自引占了一部分，所以没区分）
: review: 42
|
p***t
发帖数: 616 | 9 是
【在 c*********7 的大作中提到】
: 这是EB1a吧。
|
f*********s
发帖数: 1881 | 10 我想对于第一部分，也许是楼主背景太好，所以轻敌了？
从citation里面选几篇重要的出来包装一下吧，再加一到两封推荐信，应该可以了。
（附：我个人还没递交，不过最近一直在版上，这些都是从版上学到的）
in
show
【在 p***t 的大作中提到】
: TSC，收到RFE。contribution和authorship没过：
: Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific. scholarly. artistic.
: athletic. or business-related contributions ofmajor significance in the
: field.
: The petitioner has provided:
: ? Numerous expert testimonies from others in the beneficiary's field of
: expertise .
: ? Numerous articles that the petitioner claims references that others in
: the field are implementing the findings of the beneficiary.
: This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show
|
|
|
c*********7
发帖数: 19373 | 11 推荐信太少，Eb1a怎么也要来8封吧。
conference
【在 p***t 的大作中提到】
: journal都是正规的，几篇领域top 3的，一半按engenfactor可以在top 18% of all
: journals
: journal：25 （23英文）
: conference：13
: 做过1个journal的Guest Editor，1 journal editorial board member, 3 conference
: organizing member (都写
: support letter了)
: 推荐信：6（独立的5个，加1个phd老板）
: 引用：不太高，刚过120（自引占了一部分，所以没区分）
: review: 42
|
s*********u
发帖数: 2535 | 12 不少人只有五六封也过了，这个数量不是绝对，看怎么吹了。
现在准备ＲＦＥ，只有再多要了。
【在 c*********7 的大作中提到】
: 推荐信太少，Eb1a怎么也要来8封吧。
:
: conference
|
s****x
发帖数: 4701 | |
c**n
发帖数: 539 | 14 是不是 petition letter 写的不够清楚，
Bless |
m********a
发帖数: 607 | 15 contribution这部分我觉得推荐人空泛的谈outstanding，fascinating这些是不够的。
要细致的说申请人的工作怎么影响了别人的工作，这些影响带来多大的利润或者引导了
什么新的发现发明。比如说医学上的研究成果应用到临床上面提高了生存率。这样会更
有说服力。 |
f*****g
发帖数: 101 | 16 感觉像是RFE模板。 楼主背景很强，应该找出自己的 “闪光点”。
IO可能没有看到楼主给的杂志信息。
关于contribution，楼主可以通读引用文章，看看有没有什么反应楼主工作很重要的语
句，最好能打印出来，用荧光笔标识出来给IO看。
看看有没有什么top学校的教授，或者著名教授，或者NSC杂志引用你的文章，然后列出
来。文章的引用率有没有在top%，还不同的关键词和时间区间查查看， 最好能在top5%
里。
推荐人最好在引用过你文章的教授里面找， 最好是那些在他们引文里赞扬过你工作的
教授，这样能提供比较客观的证据。
引文里有没有提到你的名字，如什么 Dr.XXX has studied/pointed out/shown...等语
句，据说这样能显示你的internationally recognized，也能说明你工作的original
and significant。
引文里有没有提到你工作对别人工作的影响，这个也很重要。说明别人implement your
work in their research。 |
h***1
发帖数: 1058 | 17 BIG BIG Bless!!!
in
show
【在 p***t 的大作中提到】
: TSC，收到RFE。contribution和authorship没过：
: Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific. scholarly. artistic.
: athletic. or business-related contributions ofmajor significance in the
: field.
: The petitioner has provided:
: ? Numerous expert testimonies from others in the beneficiary's field of
: expertise .
: ? Numerous articles that the petitioner claims references that others in
: the field are implementing the findings of the beneficiary.
: This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show
|
n*********2
发帖数: 1760 | 18 太夸张了吧，朋友都是5+1啊
【在 c*********7 的大作中提到】
: 推荐信太少，Eb1a怎么也要来8封吧。
:
: conference
|
T**M
发帖数: 658 | 19 bless楼主，小声问一下你是几号pp呢？
conference
【在 p***t 的大作中提到】
: journal都是正规的，几篇领域top 3的，一半按engenfactor可以在top 18% of all
: journals
: journal：25 （23英文）
: conference：13
: 做过1个journal的Guest Editor，1 journal editorial board member, 3 conference
: organizing member (都写
: support letter了)
: 推荐信：6（独立的5个，加1个phd老板）
: 引用：不太高，刚过120（自引占了一部分，所以没区分）
: review: 42
|
M*****k
发帖数: 1556 | 20 是不是律师写的PL？ 感觉楼主case很强了，没有深入挖掘的吹？ 楼主重新组织一下，
深挖自己的闪光点。 |
|
|
S*****a
发帖数: 1117 | |
s***c
发帖数: 639 | 22 bless，lz背景这么猛碰上这样的IO也够倒霉的，好好回复没问题的
in
show
【在 p***t 的大作中提到】
: TSC，收到RFE。contribution和authorship没过：
: Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific. scholarly. artistic.
: athletic. or business-related contributions ofmajor significance in the
: field.
: The petitioner has provided:
: ? Numerous expert testimonies from others in the beneficiary's field of
: expertise .
: ? Numerous articles that the petitioner claims references that others in
: the field are implementing the findings of the beneficiary.
: This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show
|
p***t
发帖数: 616 | 23 多谢建议！
提交过的材料，RFE时还要再交吗？比如journal介绍、引用等等，IO好像没看到。
IO也承认：Numerous articles that the petitioner claims references that
others in
the field are implementing the findings of the beneficiary
认为有influential to the field，但要additional evidence for major
top5%
【在 f*****g 的大作中提到】
: 感觉像是RFE模板。 楼主背景很强，应该找出自己的 “闪光点”。
: IO可能没有看到楼主给的杂志信息。
: 关于contribution，楼主可以通读引用文章，看看有没有什么反应楼主工作很重要的语
: 句，最好能打印出来，用荧光笔标识出来给IO看。
: 看看有没有什么top学校的教授，或者著名教授，或者NSC杂志引用你的文章，然后列出
: 来。文章的引用率有没有在top%，还不同的关键词和时间区间查查看， 最好能在top5%
: 里。
: 推荐人最好在引用过你文章的教授里面找， 最好是那些在他们引文里赞扬过你工作的
: 教授，这样能提供比较客观的证据。
: 引文里有没有提到你的名字，如什么 Dr.XXX has studied/pointed out/shown...等语
|
p***t
发帖数: 616 | 24 惭愧。自己写的，参照板上的模板
【在 M*****k 的大作中提到】
: 是不是律师写的PL？ 感觉楼主case很强了，没有深入挖掘的吹？ 楼主重新组织一下，
: 深挖自己的闪光点。
|
p***t
发帖数: 616 | 25 11.21收到的
【在 T**M 的大作中提到】
: bless楼主，小声问一下你是几号pp呢？
:
: conference
|
