v********n
发帖数: 283 | 1 4月提交了EB1A，claim老三样，直接寄NSC，没有pp，这周收到RFE。IO 0134承认文章
和review，质疑contribution。在这里诚心请教一下大家该如何应对。因为DIY，有点
无措。尽管背景很弱，但是还是想认真回复一下，碰碰运气。
首先赞速度（不到2个月就出结果了），但是对IO的工作态度非常无语，我明明只是
claim了三样，RFE信里竟然说我claim了奖项。其实我只是把几个会议和fellowship作
为支撑contribution的证据，并没有单独claim。
背景：
地球环境科学（大气），美国phd
7篇文章（6一作），另外一篇中文没有claim，没有顶刊，文章都是近几年的，总引用
低的感人，100左右，在PL里没有拿总引用说话，只是把单篇文章的引用数和行业平均
来比。
6封推荐信（5独立）+1封期刊编辑的推荐信。推荐人来自多个国家，大都是本领域熟悉
和引用过我的工作的。
审稿25篇，最高IF5。
奖项都不值得单独claim，无非是会议的小grant和一个fellowship
因为背景太弱，在contribution上我花了很多功夫找亮点，包括
1. 一篇关于气溶胶释放的模式的文章被美国EPA的污染模式（CMAQ）采用，在他们文章
的5个不同的地方引用和借鉴。
2. 我的工作大都是参与NASA的项目，在这一点上阐述了很多对美国政府研究机构有贡
献的东西。
3. 我的一篇文章被国际气象组织的区域环境报告大段引用。
4.其他的都是采用前辈的套路，比如被顶刊，教科书和百科全书引用，以及摘抄推荐信
里的段落。
RFE质疑contribution的段落：
You have provided evidence of:
• your published scholarly research, which includes 28 published
articles and conference abstracts;
• 66 citations to your published research;
• LCarivate Analytics' Baseline-Citation Rates and Baseline-
Percentiles;
• examples of notable and international citations to your published
research; and,
• seven letters of recommendation from others 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 evidence supports that you have made original contributions to the
field, based on the publishing of your scholarly articles in noted journals
in the field, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that your
contributions are of major significance to the field at large. USCIS has
reviewed the letters of recommendation submitted on your behalf. These
letters, while they speak well of you and your contributions to the field,
are insufficient to demonstrate the significance of your contributions.
Essentially, the evidence to support the claims made in these letters does
not support that your contributions are of major significance.
The record shows that you published scholarly papers, but it is worthwhile
to note that publications are not as reliable a gauge in determining your
contributions in the field as the number of citations your publications have
garnered. Publishing alone may serve as evidence of originality, but it is
difficult to determine a published work's importance or influence ifthere is
little to no evidence that others have relied on a scientist's findings.
And so, upon examining your citatory history, we have concluded
that, while your research demonstrates original contributions in the field,
the number of citations of your work does not establish contributions of
major significance in the field.
Your citatory history shows that you are first author of only four papers,
crediting you with 66 citations as first author. In your field, as you know,
the first or primary author is usually the scientist with the idea, the
moving force behind the research, and who performs most of the writing and
research, with the assistance of the other authors. It is the first author
who is primarily responsible and accountable for the findings and who
receives most of the acclaim or censure. We believe that you contributed to
the research and writing, but to be primary author of only seven of your
cited papers does not demonstrate contributions of major significance in the
field and, as a result, that your "achievements have been recognized in the
field of expertise."
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 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:
• 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. | l****6
发帖数: 1 | 2 我的跟无语，直接说别人引用都上1000了，你还要更多证据。。。 | j******j
发帖数: 8 | 3 碰上了懂行的。知道第一作者其实才是文章的最大贡献者。试试看辩驳即使第一作者的
文章引用才66，但是也是做出了很大的贡献。相对于同行的其他大牛，你在同期发表的
文章及贡献并不比他们差，证明你是本行top
【在 v********n 的大作中提到】
: 4月提交了EB1A，claim老三样，直接寄NSC，没有pp，这周收到RFE。IO 0134承认文章
: 和review，质疑contribution。在这里诚心请教一下大家该如何应对。因为DIY，有点
: 无措。尽管背景很弱，但是还是想认真回复一下，碰碰运气。
: 首先赞速度（不到2个月就出结果了），但是对IO的工作态度非常无语，我明明只是
: claim了三样，RFE信里竟然说我claim了奖项。其实我只是把几个会议和fellowship作
: 为支撑contribution的证据，并没有单独claim。
: 背景：
: 地球环境科学（大气），美国phd
: 7篇文章（6一作），另外一篇中文没有claim，没有顶刊，文章都是近几年的，总引用
: 低的感人，100左右，在PL里没有拿总引用说话，只是把单篇文章的引用数和行业平均
| v********n
发帖数: 283 | 4 其实并不止66，一作文章也不止四篇。我只是在证据里highlight了其中四篇文章，把
他们被引用的文章列出来了，并没有拿citation总数做证据，毕竟不是很高。感觉IO跳
过了很多细节。
你的见解我倒是没有考虑过，不知道怎么搜寻一作和非一作的证据，很牛的同行文章
很多很多，挂名的估计一年就十几二十几片了。
【在 j******j 的大作中提到】
: 碰上了懂行的。知道第一作者其实才是文章的最大贡献者。试试看辩驳即使第一作者的
: 文章引用才66，但是也是做出了很大的贡献。相对于同行的其他大牛，你在同期发表的
: 文章及贡献并不比他们差，证明你是本行top
| j******j
发帖数: 8 | 5 我见过他们横向比较的，比如行业牛人，找他和你同时期发表的文章，比较引用数，贡
献什么的，就说你看，行业大牛和我同时期发表的文章，我的贡献并不比行业大牛差，
甚至比他强，说明你很牛。
行业大牛一般经过多年积累，像你说的挂名文章，总引用书很大了，但是你可以比较他
近期发表的文章，引用数就不会那么高，可以和你近期发表的比较
【在 v********n 的大作中提到】
: 其实并不止66，一作文章也不止四篇。我只是在证据里highlight了其中四篇文章，把
: 他们被引用的文章列出来了，并没有拿citation总数做证据，毕竟不是很高。感觉IO跳
: 过了很多细节。
: 你的见解我倒是没有考虑过，不知道怎么搜寻一作和非一作的证据，很牛的同行文章
: 很多很多，挂名的估计一年就十几二十几片了。
| g*********L
发帖数: 1 | 6 1. 一篇关于气溶胶释放的模式的文章被美国EPA的污染模式（CMAQ）采用，在他们文章
的5个不同的地方引用和借鉴。
Q:有EPA老大的推荐信吗？推荐信中重点强调了你的文章对美国乃至全球的贡献了吗？
有介绍EPA的材料吗？材料里有说EPA多么多么牛吗？
2. 我的工作大都是参与NASA的项目，在这一点上阐述了很多对美国政府研究机构有贡
献的东西。
Q:有NASA实验室老大的推荐信吗？最好是带NASA LOGO的信纸的推荐信。推荐信中有强
调你的工作有很大贡献吗？有介绍NASA的材料吗？材料里有说NASA多么多么牛吗？
3. 我的一篇文章被国际气象组织的区域环境报告大段引用。
Q:有国际气象组织leader的推荐信吗？推荐信中有强调你的工作有很大贡献吗？有介绍
际气象组织的材料吗？材料里有说际气象组织多么多么牛吗？
Key Points：你自己说有多大贡献不算数，你要用其他牛人来给你背书。 | b********d
发帖数: 7 | 7 建议考虑多要几封大牛的推荐信，找找有没有ARB或者epa的熟人 | j****l
发帖数: 1352 | 8 我们是同行。感觉这个引用真的很难。但是还是试一下吧。人家说了引用太少，我觉得
去争论你的引用多么重要是没有用的。你要挖掘其他的亮点。引用之外的亮点，比如对
社会的贡献，牛人的点评，等等。 | s******2
发帖数: 280 | |
|
