k*****u
发帖数: 14053 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Immigration 讨论区 】
发信人: Speedlite (580), 信区: Immigration
标 题: [包子] NSC EB1B RFE 求祝福和建议
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Jan 31 01:55:22 2012, 美东)
刚收到RFE信，求祝福和建议。前20都有包子。有实质性建议的多黄包。
背景较弱：
CS phd, work in big company
8篇paper (5篇英文 3篇国内硕士时发的中文)
citation: 36，其中25个都是中文论文的citation，英文的只有11个
（这些都是他引，自引的英文还有20篇左右，都是导师和lab其他人发的）
review 40+ (有journal，也有conference TPC)
5 independe references + 2 dependent reference
自我感觉paper和citation少是硬伤。
IO是NSC2号，看起来是专发RFE的杀手，总结贴里有不少人栽在他手里，但是
还是想试试，毕竟花了好多心血。
IO的信：
承认满足了下面两个条件，但totality不够。
- judge of the work of others
- authorship
contribution这条被反驳。
【问题】满足了其他两项之后在RFE里还要不要强调contribution这一条呢？
针对contribution, IO的comments是：
You have provided:
- letters from peers and colleagues
（这里说peer会不会IO以为refence是主观的，不是客观的？）
- evidence of conference presentations
This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted
does not show that the beneficiary has made original scientific
or scholarly research contributions to the Academic field. 要帮助
证明whether the beneficiary's contributions are original, 可以提交:
- Objective documentary evidence of the beneficiary's contribution
to their academic field [推荐信？]
- Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently
consider the beneficiary's work original [推荐信？]
- Testtimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the
beneficiary's original scientific or scholarly research
contributions to their academic field. (See note below). [推荐信？]
- Evidence that the beneficiary's orginal contribution has provoked
widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited
[引用？]
- Evidence of the beneficiary's work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to:
[这些都没有，只有几封要软件或者问软件相关问题的email，不知道有没有用？]
- contracts with companies using the beneficiary's products
- licensed technology being used by others
- patents currently being utlized and shown to be significant to the
field
Note: letters and testimonies if submitted, must provide as much
details as possible about the beneficiary's contribution and must
explain, in detail, how the contribution was "original" (not merely
replicating the work of others). General statements regarding the
importance of the endeavors are insufficient.
[这个不知道是说我的推荐信太笼统，还只是套话?]
下面是IO的总结陈词：
满足了至少两个条件，但是in each case: the totality of the evidence must
establish that the beneficiary is:
- Recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field
specified in the petitioin.
这个目前看起来没达到。
The evidence provided shows that the beneficiary has acted as a
judege of the work of others in their academic field. 但是，
further documentary evidence is needed to establish that the
judging establishes that the beneficiary is recognized
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified
in the petition. 要帮助确定这个，可以提交:
- Documentary evidence showing that the act of judging was based
on the beneficiary's outstanding recognition in their academic
field. Examples include but are not limited to:
- Serving in an editorial positions(s) for recognized journals
in the beneficiary's academic field; [没有]
- Reviewing a large number of articles in the academic field; and
[40几篇算large number吗？我以为算]
- Serving as an expert judege, panelist, reviewer, etc. for
selection of recognized prizes and/or memberships in the academic
field. [没有]
中心 acknowledge 收到 evidence regarding the beneficiary's
publications and citation record. Now, please submit evidence of
additional publications if applicable [没有新paper] and updated
documentation of the citation record regarding the beneficiary's
publications [增加了一两篇英文的] including printouts of search results
from such websites as SciFinder and Google Scholar.
这个我有点糊涂了，又说必须是在初始申请时间前存在的证据，又要我提供additional
publication和updated
citation.是不是就是嫌我publication和citation少？
大家觉得我应该从哪些方面准备RFE呢？非常感谢！ |
|
