|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
r*********1
发帖数: 756 | 1 9/15刚收到的ref.单独开个贴出来大家给参考一下。
Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
You have provided evidence of:
*your scholarly articles in the field;
*136 citations to these published works;
*citation averages from Web of knowledge;
*a listing of most accessed papers from the Journal of Chemical Physics;
*invitations to present at conferences and submit papers to journals; ans,
*six letters of recommendation form experts in the field.
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.
while the letters of recommendation are very complimentary to the petitioner
's work and research in the field, even providing details of the petitioner'
s contributions to the field and implying the significance to these
contributions, in evaluating the corroborating evidence, namely the
citations to the petitioner's research, the evidence does not support that
these contributions are of major significance to the field as a whole. The
record contains evidence that the petitioner's work has been cited a total
of 136 times.
additionally, you submitted citations averages from wed of knowledge and web
of science search results, showing that a few of your papers are frequently
cited for their published years in the field.Those tools are useful for
broadly determining the citatory rates for each field, but we use Google
Scholar because it allows us to compare your citatory history with that of
scientists with whom you have collaborated, who have cited you, and more
accurately, who in your specific field. And so, upon examining your citatory
history, we have concluded that, while your research demonstrates original
contributions in the field, the number of the citations of your work, when
compared with that of the very top scientists in the field, whose
publications(according to Google Scholar)have garnered citations numbered in
the thousands, odes not establish contributions of major significance in
the field.
And, it is noted that you presented your work at conferences, but this does
not demonstrate original contributions. because there is no way to determine
a conference paper's originality or influence on the field.
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 of major significance.
*evidence that the beneficiary's major significant contributions has
provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
*evidence of beneficiary's work being implemented by others. Possible
evidence may include but is not limited to:
*Contracts with companies using the beneficiary's products;
*Licensed technology being used by others;
*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.
很长，不知道是IO ref 模版还是真花时间看这个case了。没有什么专利，做的很基础
也很偏。 引用136跟版上大牛比起来确实算少的，但1000有点太勉强了吧？希望大家给
点意见，感谢感谢 | w******n
发帖数: 13202 | 2 进来常见的REF模板。的确直击众多申请的要害：引用数目。
这个只能从挖掘更多的引用本身的重大亮点来还击，是不是有效，就不好说。只能说，
尽人力，听天命了。多下工夫吧。如果原来准备的材料，没有挖掘足够的亮点，现在深
度挖掘还是有效果的。
bless | c******3
发帖数: 6509 | 3 还是质疑你的contribution啊，多挖亮点看看，例如多少个国家引用你的文章了，多少
牛校（Top 500都可以算）
对质疑thousand的，可以去统计下领域内专家数量，然后和你发文章的时间开始进行对
比，看你的比例，如果在Top 5%就可以了
至于质疑你的会议资格的贡献，再去找点推荐信说明下吧 | s3
发帖数: 2270 | 4 这个是哪个IO？
所能想到的也无非是证明citation跟同领域内的相比不低
广泛引用（journal，institution）
以及找出一些新的你的工作被使用的例子来
【在 r*********1 的大作中提到】
: 9/15刚收到的ref.单独开个贴出来大家给参考一下。
: Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
: athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
: field.
: You have provided evidence of:
: *your scholarly articles in the field;
: *136 citations to these published works;
: *citation averages from Web of knowledge;
: *a listing of most accessed papers from the Journal of Chemical Physics;
: *invitations to present at conferences and submit papers to journals; ans,
| z******7
发帖数: 359 | | e**l
发帖数: 131 | | L**i
发帖数: 22365 | 7 还是要深挖
套模板强调引用数现在看来已经对io造成免疫，且范围在逐渐扩大 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
