|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i*******2
发帖数: 140 | 1 DIY仔细准备了材料，感觉可以直接过，没有想到收到了RFE，不知怎么回复，麻烦有经
验的给提些建议，非常感谢！
背景：
美国Top20 PhD, Top10 Postdoc. Claim老三样：文章、贡献和审稿
文章：11篇。5 1st author；5 篇领域内最好杂志（IF~10）；一篇为中文杂志。 引用
190+ (ISI), 250+ (Google Scholar).
审稿：24，（IF 从25到1不等，9个杂志）
推荐信：5封独立加1封PhD导师（美国、英国、意大利、加拿大和台湾）。
1封主编审稿证明信
1封公司合作者支持信
参考版上的经验，深挖了自己的贡献。做了油灯图，根据关键词索引了自己的文章，列
出了Small Percentage，也总结了引用并应用自己文章的文献。
感觉所有证据都已经用上了，手头上当时多准备了三封独立推荐信预防RFE（以色列、
爱尔兰、美国；美国那封来自工作界；2封编辑证明信）。
Timeline
06/11/2013 Efile
06/17/2013 RD
06/25/2013 PP received and started
07/01/2013 PP stopped
07/08/2013 RFE received from NSC0299
现在有几个问题
1. 在RFE中提到了Translation，不知道这一段是固有的模板，还是要让我提供翻译件
？因
为我有一篇中文文章，不过当时已经提供了英文摘要，不确定RFE中为什么会提到翻译。
2. RFE是不是承认文章和审稿？另外Totality是不是IO也承认？
3. 关于贡献，IO提到了我的5封独立推荐人的名字及单位，但认为这些推荐信不足以证明
Oriniality和Majory Significance，请教回复策略？
4. 回复RFE，需要重新再提交原来提交的证据吗（上次提交了五百多页的材料 ），还
是只提交这次的新证据？
以下是RFE全文：
I-140 E11 Alien of Extraordinary Ability
Reference is made to this Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker,
seeking E11 immigrant classification as an individual of extraordinary
ability for XXXX.
The beneficiary intends to work as research scientist in the field of
chemistry.
The E11 immigrant classification applies to individuals with extraordinary
ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. The
individual must demonstrate that they have sustained national or
international acclaim and that their achievements have been recognized in
the field of expertise, indicating that they are one of the small percentage
who has risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. The individual
must plan to continue to work in their area of extraordinary ability and
must substantially benefit prospectively the United States.
To process the petition and determine if the beneficiary is eligible,
additional information is required. This request provides suggested evidence
that you could submit to satisfy each requested items. Or, you may choose
to submit none of them, and instead submit other evidence to satisfy the
request. You may also explain why or how the evidence in the record already
establishes eligibility. Please note, however, that you are responsible for
providing evidence that best shows the beneficiary meets all requirements.
The evidence must show that the beneficiary was eligible for the requested
benefit when you filed the Form I-140.
Translations regarding documents in a Foreign Language.
All non-English language documents must have an English translation for the
pertinent parts of the document that help to establish eligibility. If you
would like USCIS to consider evidence that is written in a foreign language,
you must submit English language translation for the parts of the documents
that help to establish eligibility for requested benefit. The translator
must certify that:
The translations are accurate and complete, and
The translator is competent to translate for the foreign language into
English.
A two-part analysis is used to determine whether the beneficiary is an
individual of extraordinary ability:
First, we determine whether the petitioner has submitted evidence to show
that the beneficiary:
Has received a one-time achievement (a major internationally recognized
award); or,
Qualifies under at least three of the ten criteria required for this
classification.
If the petitioner establishes that the beneficiary has received a one time
achievement (a major internationally recognized award), or meets at least
three of the other criteria, we then determine whether the petitioner has
submitted evidence demonstrating the the beneficiary:
Has sustained national or international acclaim.
In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed “sustained” national or
international acclaim, such acclaim must be maintained. A beneficiary may
have achieved extraordinary ability in the pat but then failed to maintain a
comparable level of acclaim thereafter; and
Has achievements the have been recognized in the field of expertise,
indicating the beneficiary is one of that small percentage who has risen to
the very top of the field of endeavor.
The petitioner has provided documentation under the following regulatory
areas:
Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel,
as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of
specialization for which classification is sought.
Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic,
or business-related contributions of major significance in the field;
Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in
professional or major trade publications or other major media.
A discussion follows addressing the areas of insufficiency and what could be
submitted to overcome them.
…..
Evidence of the beneficiary’s participation, either individually or on a
panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of
specialization for which classification is sought.
Based on the evidence currently in the record, it appears that this
criterion has been met.
…...
Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
atheletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
The petitioner has provided a citation history, documentation concerning the
entities publishing the beneficiary’s scholarly works, and letters from
the following persons:
a) Dr. XXXX
b) Dr. XXXX
c) Dr. XXXX
d) Dr. XXXX
e) Dr. XXXX
This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show
that beneficiary’s contributions are considered to be of major
significance in the field of endeavor. While the authors of these letters do
describe a talented productive researcher and scientist, they do not
provide adequate detail concerning the major significance of the beneficiary
’s work. In addition, the beneficiary’s citation history, in and of itself
, is not dispositive of the requirement of a contribution of original 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
contributions 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
eveidence 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.
Evidence of the beneficiary’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field
, in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Based on the evidence currently in the record, it appears that this
criterion has been met.
…....
As discussed above, the beneficiary has not garnered a one-time achievement
award or met at least three of the ten criteria. As such, USCIS is affording
the petitioner the opportunity to submit additional evidence to establish
that beneficiary meets the regulatory criteria. The response to this request
should address the insufficiencies articulated by USCIS in this request.
Additional, meeting the minimum regulatory criteria outlined above, alone
will not establish eligibility for the E11 immigrant classification. Any
evidence submitted in response to this request, should also articulate how
the evidence establishes that the beneficiary possesses the required high
level of expertise for the E11 immigrant classification.
This is the petitioner’s opportunity to articulate further details or
provide additional evidence in regards to how the evidence submitted in the
initial filing or in response to this Request for Evidence establishes that
the beneficiary meets the requirements regards high level of expertise for
the immigrant classification.
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the
E11 immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary possessing:
Sustained national or international acclaim.
In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed “sustained” national or
international acclaim such acclaim must be maintained. A beneficiary may
have achieved extraordinary ability in the past but then failed to maintain
a comparable level of acclaim thereafter, and,
Achievements that have been recognized in the field of expertise, indicating
that beneficiary is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very
top of the field of endeavor.
In conclusion, when ultimately making a final decision regarding eligibility
, USCIS will first evaluate the evidence submitted by the petitioner to
determine which regulatory criteria the beneficiary meets in part one of the
analysis. If the petitioner establishes that the beneficiary has received a
one-time achievements (a major internationally recognized award) or meet at
least three of the antecedent evidentiary prongs, then USCIS will evaluate
all of the evidence in the record to make a final merits determination of
the whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of the evidence, has
demonstrated the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim
and that the beneficiary’s achievements have been recognized in the field
of expertise, indicating that the beneficiary is one of the small percentage
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
The is the petitioner’s opportunity to meet their legal burden of proof to
establish eligibility in all respects. Whenever any person makes an
application for an immigration benefit, they shall bear the burden of proof
to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. Therefore, the petitioner
must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, in other words, that it is
more likely than not, that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the
benefit sought. Accordingly, the decision will based on the initial evidence
submitted upon filing and all additional evidence submitted in response to
this request. | z***b
发帖数: 4667 | 2 具体rfe你啥东西啊
你的contribution被rfe，那你的totality肯定没过
【在 i*******2 的大作中提到】
: DIY仔细准备了材料，感觉可以直接过，没有想到收到了RFE，不知怎么回复，麻烦有经
: 验的给提些建议，非常感谢！
: 背景：
: 美国Top20 PhD, Top10 Postdoc. Claim老三样：文章、贡献和审稿
: 文章：11篇。5 1st author；5 篇领域内最好杂志（IF~10）；一篇为中文杂志。 引用
: 190+ (ISI), 250+ (Google Scholar).
: 审稿：24，（IF 从25到1不等，9个杂志）
: 推荐信：5封独立加1封PhD导师（美国、英国、意大利、加拿大和台湾）。
: 1封主编审稿证明信
: 1封公司合作者支持信
| i*******2
发帖数: 140 | 3 谢谢你的快速回复，已经把RFE内容贴出来了。
不知道哪里看Totality。
【在 z***b 的大作中提到】
: 具体rfe你啥东西啊
: 你的contribution被rfe，那你的totality肯定没过
| d*******n
发帖数: 4778 | 4 IO承认了publication，review,没承认contribution,也就是totally没过。
【在 i*******2 的大作中提到】
: DIY仔细准备了材料，感觉可以直接过，没有想到收到了RFE，不知怎么回复，麻烦有经
: 验的给提些建议，非常感谢！
: 背景：
: 美国Top20 PhD, Top10 Postdoc. Claim老三样：文章、贡献和审稿
: 文章：11篇。5 1st author；5 篇领域内最好杂志（IF~10）；一篇为中文杂志。 引用
: 190+ (ISI), 250+ (Google Scholar).
: 审稿：24，（IF 从25到1不等，9个杂志）
: 推荐信：5封独立加1封PhD导师（美国、英国、意大利、加拿大和台湾）。
: 1封主编审稿证明信
: 1封公司合作者支持信
| z***b
发帖数: 4667 | 5 A two-part analysis is used to determine whether the beneficiary is an indiv
idual of extraordinary ability:
这是中间的一段，
然后IO指出你的contribution没过
所以这个2步法就没进行完，所以你回答rfe的时候要强调totality
【在 i*******2 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢你的快速回复，已经把RFE内容贴出来了。
: 不知道哪里看Totality。
| d*******n
发帖数: 4778 | 6 背景不弱，citation也不少，怎么会contribution不过？
【在 i*******2 的大作中提到】
: DIY仔细准备了材料，感觉可以直接过，没有想到收到了RFE，不知怎么回复，麻烦有经
: 验的给提些建议，非常感谢！
: 背景：
: 美国Top20 PhD, Top10 Postdoc. Claim老三样：文章、贡献和审稿
: 文章：11篇。5 1st author；5 篇领域内最好杂志（IF~10）；一篇为中文杂志。 引用
: 190+ (ISI), 250+ (Google Scholar).
: 审稿：24，（IF 从25到1不等，9个杂志）
: 推荐信：5封独立加1封PhD导师（美国、英国、意大利、加拿大和台湾）。
: 1封主编审稿证明信
: 1封公司合作者支持信
| a******t
发帖数: 319 | | i*******2
发帖数: 140 | 8 谢谢静心！
IO关于评价贡献的那段，我看几遍，没有看明白他要说什么，自我感觉推荐信写的挺详
细的，并不空洞。
【在 d*******n 的大作中提到】
: 背景不弱，citation也不少，怎么会contribution不过？
| G*******5
发帖数: 381 | 9 This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show
that beneficiary’s contributions are considered to be of major
significance in the field of endeavor. While the authors of these letters do
describe a talented productive researcher and scientist, they do not
provide adequate detail concerning the major significance of the beneficiary
’s work (感觉你的推荐信不是关于你的工作，而是关于你的样子。). In addition,
the beneficiary’s citation history, in and of itself
, is not dispositive of the requirement of a contribution of original major
significance （就是说你的推荐信或者证据没有强调originality或者major
signficance) | G*******5
发帖数: 381 | 10 不知道你的推荐信是怎么样的，推荐信一定要深挖你工作的意义和原创性，不要像记流
水帐一样把所有的research都列上去。
还有IO指出你单用推荐信和citation来支持contribution太单薄，解决方法可能有如下
几个：
1）看看有没有相关的媒体报道，小媒体也行；
2）看看你的citations中有没有关于你工作的正面评价，而不是只提数量；
3）找人帮你看看你的recommendation letter有没有问题；
4）看看你的research有没有被人应用（专利什么的）或者有没有人跟你合作（找你要
东西）；
5）再次强调你文章的引用，告诉IO：so many great scientists worldwide learn
from my work, and their works are based on mine。这可以说明significance.
要多管齐下，你可千万别就5），那就麻烦了。 | | | d*******n
发帖数: 4778 | 11 前面我删了，就是IO陈述EB1A标准，从这以下是IO的评价：
The petitioner has provided documentation under the following regulatory
areas:
Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel,
as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of
specialization for which classification is sought.
---你claim的review
Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic,
or business-related contributions of major significance in the field;
---你claim的contribution
Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in
professional or major trade publications or other major media.
--- 你claim的authorship
A discussion follows addressing the areas of insufficiency and what could be
submitted to overcome them.
---指出提供的证据不足以满足EB1A的条件，需要你提供证据克服这个不足
…..
Evidence of the beneficiary’s participation, either individually or on a
panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of
specialization for which classification is sought.
Based on the evidence currently in the record, it appears that this
criterion has been met.
---承认你的review
…...
Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
atheletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
The petitioner has provided a citation history, documentation concerning the
entities publishing the beneficiary’s scholarly works, and letters from
the following persons:
a) Dr. XXXX
b) Dr. XXXX
c) Dr. XXXX
d) Dr. XXXX
e) Dr. XXXX
This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show
that beneficiary’s contributions are considered to be of major
significance in the field of endeavor. While the authors of these letters do
describe a talented productive researcher and scientist, they do not
provide adequate detail concerning the major significance of the beneficiary
’s work. In addition, the beneficiary’s citation history, in and of itself
, is not dispositive of the requirement of a contribution of original major
significance. To assist in determining whether the beneficiary’s
contributions are original and of major significance in the field, the
petitioner may submit:
---我没看过你的PL，但从IO说的"do describe a talented productive researcher
and scientist, they do not provide adequate detail concerning the major
significance of the beneficiary’s work"来看，问题在这：这些推荐人只强调你是
聪明的，很productive的researcher，他们没有说明你的工作怎么对他们有影响了。所
有IO要你提供下面的几个方面来证明你的工作、成果在领域里重要影响
Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the beneficiary’s
contributions 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
eveidence 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.
Evidence of the beneficiary’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field
, in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Based on the evidence currently in the record, it appears that this
criterion has been met.
---承认你的authorship.
【在 i*******2 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢静心！
: IO关于评价贡献的那段，我看几遍，没有看明白他要说什么，自我感觉推荐信写的挺详
: 细的，并不空洞。
| i*******2
发帖数: 140 | 12 谢谢你的建议。
在原来的PL中，关于贡献一项提供了C&EN的评论，和Faculty 1000的评论，也提供了文
章被“JACS Select“和“JACS highlight” highlighted的证据。
同时也提供了文章被他人Review中大段提到的证据。
也提供与一个公司合作者的证明信。
文章也被NewxRX评论了，当时觉得现有的证据够了，怕招来RFE，就没有放上NewsRX的
证据。
关于PL贡献的格式是根据Junegt的模板来的，在贡献中Claim了五小点（现在意识到可
能分的太细了），一两篇文章一点。然后推荐信根据推荐人引用的文章分别谈了其中一
两小点的贡献。
感觉能用上的证据都已经用上了。
【在 G*******5 的大作中提到】
: 不知道你的推荐信是怎么样的，推荐信一定要深挖你工作的意义和原创性，不要像记流
: 水帐一样把所有的research都列上去。
: 还有IO指出你单用推荐信和citation来支持contribution太单薄，解决方法可能有如下
: 几个：
: 1）看看有没有相关的媒体报道，小媒体也行；
: 2）看看你的citations中有没有关于你工作的正面评价，而不是只提数量；
: 3）找人帮你看看你的recommendation letter有没有问题；
: 4）看看你的research有没有被人应用（专利什么的）或者有没有人跟你合作（找你要
: 东西）；
: 5）再次强调你文章的引用，告诉IO：so many great scientists worldwide learn
| G*******5
发帖数: 381 | 13 那真是不应该了，你碰上那个IO了？
【在 i*******2 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢你的建议。
: 在原来的PL中，关于贡献一项提供了C&EN的评论，和Faculty 1000的评论，也提供了文
: 章被“JACS Select“和“JACS highlight” highlighted的证据。
: 同时也提供了文章被他人Review中大段提到的证据。
: 也提供与一个公司合作者的证明信。
: 文章也被NewxRX评论了，当时觉得现有的证据够了，怕招来RFE，就没有放上NewsRX的
: 证据。
: 关于PL贡献的格式是根据Junegt的模板来的，在贡献中Claim了五小点（现在意识到可
: 能分的太细了），一两篇文章一点。然后推荐信根据推荐人引用的文章分别谈了其中一
: 两小点的贡献。
| G*******5
发帖数: 381 | 14 Junegt的模板不是两步法，会不会是这个的问题？我没用他的模板，觉得
不适用于我的case。 而且我也不想要彩色PL。 | c******t
发帖数: 1162 | 15 我正在参考Junegt的模板。对于两步法，您能提供个新模板么？
【在 G*******5 的大作中提到】
: Junegt的模板不是两步法，会不会是这个的问题？我没用他的模板，觉得
: 不适用于我的case。 而且我也不想要彩色PL。
| G*******5
发帖数: 381 | | G*******5
发帖数: 381 | 17 还有，我的contribution中，RL，media report, citation/commentary是独立的三条
。就是说，我先claim了我的major research findings，然后引用RL来证明
significance and originality，这是第一条。然后citation/commentaries，这是第
二条。media report是第三条。我基本没看到人这样做。只是我觉得这样更容易让IO看
清楚我的证据，而且我基本上所有的commentaries 和media reports都是针对一篇
paper的，如果用Junegt的模板，岂不是第一条无比长，第二条第三条contribution短
的很难看了。 | G*******5
发帖数: 381 | | i*******2
发帖数: 140 | 19 我参考他的模板，把自己的贡献根据发表的文章分成五小点，其中一小点框架如下。
1.1 I am the first scientist who xxxxx. My novel finding solved a long-
standing, unanswered question: xxxxxx.
This finding was reported in a highly-cited article “xxxxx” published in
JACS in 2010 [Exhibit A1.1].
• My significant contribution to xxxx is evidenced by the fact that
the journal JACS is the #1 most-cited journal in all Chemistry field. [
Exhibit A7.1].
• This paper is #2 (out of 361) most-cited articles on the topic of
“xxx” and is #2 (out of 490) most-cited articles on the topic of “xxx”
published in all journals since 2010. [Exhibit B7.1 & B7.2].
• JACS journal is “the world's preeminent journal in all of
chemistry and interfacing areas of science.” [Exhibit A9.1]. Even compared
with the articles published in JACS since 2010, my paper is still the most
cited article among 14 articles on topic of “xxxx”, and among 19 articles
on topic of “xxxx” [Exhibit B8.1 and B8.2].
• This finding has had tremendous impact on other scientists’ work
involved in 12 different subject areas [Exhibit B9.1]. It has been cited 41
times since July 2010 [Exhibit A10.1 and B10.1] by 95 scientists from 52
institutions in 12 countries including USA, Spain, Netherlands, Germany,
Israel, and Japan. [Exhibit B9.1]. This citation rate is 5 times higher than
the average citation rates of 6.57 of articles published in 2010 in the
same field of Chemistry [Table 4 & Exhibit A20.2].
• This study has been heavily discussed and used as scientific
evidences to verify other scientists’ computational and experimental
results in recent studies published on prestigious international journals:
o The article in xxxx explicitly stated that: “This predicted general
trend is exactly what was observed for xxxx [33, which is my article]”. [
Exhibit B11.1]
o The article in xxxx states that: “Our observation of the xxxx is in
line with the results of xxxx” [Exhibit B11.2]
o The article in xxxx states that: “These results are in reasonable
agreement with experimental data 29 (my article).” [Exhibit B11.3]
• This article was cited by Garman researchers in a review of
literature that devoted one paragraph to heavily discuss my discoveries in
Report on Progress of Physics (RPP) [Exhibit B18.3]. RPP is the #4 (out of
84) journal in the filed of Physics with an impact factor of 14.720 [Exhibit
B18.2], and it “is a prestigious journal for the publication of reviews
surveying the development of selected topics” [Exhibit B18.1].
• More importantly, this work has been used as the basis for other
scientists’ important research. The article published in xxxxx explicitly
stated that: “On the basis of previous results of xxxx” [Exhibit B12.1]
• In addition, my findings have been widely adopted by other
researchers as testified by the following professors in their independent
reference letters:
o “Many groups, including mine, have benefited from his research, which
ignited interests in xxxx. In my group, we found that xxxx.” – Dr. xxxx [
Exhibit B1]
o “His innovative work has drawn significant attention from researchers
around the world and frequently adopted into their studies. Recent studies
from Prof. XXXX and Prof. XXXX have also shown ...” – Dr. XXXX [Exhibit B2]
The evidences above truly demonstrate my original contribution,
international recognition and leading position in the xxxx field. Some
professors have also provided independent evaluations of my findings on wxxx
in their supporting letters:
• Dr. xxxx: “Dr. iFeng is the first scientist to unveil that...
This groundbreaking finding has rewritten the 30 years of ...” [Exhibit B5]
• Dr. xxxx: “Dr. iFeng for the first time discovered that xxxx
plays a very important role in xxx. Such work is of great importance in
understanding xxx because... He also creatively used ...” [Exhibit B1]
• Dr. xxxx: “Dr. iFeng demonstrated that another component caused
by xxxx, also plays a very important role xxxx. He found that the ..... The
significance of his work is that these results answered the long-standing
question in the field of xxx that why xxxx.” [Exhibit B2]
【在 c******t 的大作中提到】
: 我正在参考Junegt的模板。对于两步法，您能提供个新模板么？
| d***y
发帖数: 8107 | 20 Junegt的模板是标准的两步法，你给出的那个模板和他的没有本质区别
【在 G*******5 的大作中提到】
: Junegt的模板不是两步法，会不会是这个的问题？我没用他的模板，觉得
: 不适用于我的case。 而且我也不想要彩色PL。
| | | G*******5
发帖数: 381 | 21 真的吗？
难道我看错了？我们看的不是一个模板？如果是这样的话，我要跟人家道歉的。
【在 d***y 的大作中提到】
: Junegt的模板是标准的两步法，你给出的那个模板和他的没有本质区别
| G*******5
发帖数: 381 | | d***y
发帖数: 8107 | 23 第18-20页，就是你所说的两步法的第二步，呵呵
版内搜索，他贴中的链接就1个
【在 G*******5 的大作中提到】
: 真的吗？
: 难道我看错了？我们看的不是一个模板？如果是这样的话，我要跟人家道歉的。
| d*******n
发帖数: 4778 | 24 可能PL还是有些问题，我看了之后，没有impressive的感觉。虽然你进行了一些分析比
较，但不知道为什么，总感觉很空。
that
of
”
【在 i*******2 的大作中提到】
: 我参考他的模板，把自己的贡献根据发表的文章分成五小点，其中一小点框架如下。
: 1.1 I am the first scientist who xxxxx. My novel finding solved a long-
: standing, unanswered question: xxxxxx.
: This finding was reported in a highly-cited article “xxxxx” published in
: JACS in 2010 [Exhibit A1.1].
: • My significant contribution to xxxx is evidenced by the fact that
: the journal JACS is the #1 most-cited journal in all Chemistry field. [
: Exhibit A7.1].
: • This paper is #2 (out of 361) most-cited articles on the topic of
: “xxx” and is #2 (out of 490) most-cited articles on the topic of “xxx”
| d***y
发帖数: 8107 | 25 我觉得还有一点，lz是在NSC，呵呵，门槛高那么小小，同样的东西在TSC行得通的，到
了NSC就不好使了
【在 d*******n 的大作中提到】
: 可能PL还是有些问题，我看了之后，没有impressive的感觉。虽然你进行了一些分析比
: 较，但不知道为什么，总感觉很空。
:
: that
: of
: ”
| G*******5
发帖数: 381 | 26 真的是我看错了？我没有看到final merit determination啊。 | x***h
发帖数: 9020 | 27 bless
【在 i*******2 的大作中提到】
: DIY仔细准备了材料，感觉可以直接过，没有想到收到了RFE，不知怎么回复，麻烦有经
: 验的给提些建议，非常感谢！
: 背景：
: 美国Top20 PhD, Top10 Postdoc. Claim老三样：文章、贡献和审稿
: 文章：11篇。5 1st author；5 篇领域内最好杂志（IF~10）；一篇为中文杂志。 引用
: 190+ (ISI), 250+ (Google Scholar).
: 审稿：24，（IF 从25到1不等，9个杂志）
: 推荐信：5封独立加1封PhD导师（美国、英国、意大利、加拿大和台湾）。
: 1封主编审稿证明信
: 1封公司合作者支持信
| x***h
发帖数: 9020 | 28 文章11篇，contribution就得到1.11了，这么多贡献都不认啊？
我他妈都寒心了
【在 i*******2 的大作中提到】
: DIY仔细准备了材料，感觉可以直接过，没有想到收到了RFE，不知怎么回复，麻烦有经
: 验的给提些建议，非常感谢！
: 背景：
: 美国Top20 PhD, Top10 Postdoc. Claim老三样：文章、贡献和审稿
: 文章：11篇。5 1st author；5 篇领域内最好杂志（IF~10）；一篇为中文杂志。 引用
: 190+ (ISI), 250+ (Google Scholar).
: 审稿：24，（IF 从25到1不等，9个杂志）
: 推荐信：5封独立加1封PhD导师（美国、英国、意大利、加拿大和台湾）。
: 1封主编审稿证明信
: 1封公司合作者支持信
| b****u
发帖数: 903 | 29 sigh, NSC有太多bt的io了，我们只是不走运而已。
btw, 有人告诉我，现在io按照2条来找rfe，1, diy的，因为没有请律师，没有给美国
增加gdp，2, pp的，尤其是直接pp的，等这要gc是吧，给你rfe缓缓再说，手头一堆的
没有pp的等了半年还没看呢。
that
of
”
【在 i*******2 的大作中提到】
: 我参考他的模板，把自己的贡献根据发表的文章分成五小点，其中一小点框架如下。
: 1.1 I am the first scientist who xxxxx. My novel finding solved a long-
: standing, unanswered question: xxxxxx.
: This finding was reported in a highly-cited article “xxxxx” published in
: JACS in 2010 [Exhibit A1.1].
: • My significant contribution to xxxx is evidenced by the fact that
: the journal JACS is the #1 most-cited journal in all Chemistry field. [
: Exhibit A7.1].
: • This paper is #2 (out of 361) most-cited articles on the topic of
: “xxx” and is #2 (out of 490) most-cited articles on the topic of “xxx”
| s*******i
发帖数: 1063 | 30 我也是这感觉。好像现在对数字有点免疫，尤其数字很多的时候。好像没看明白具体做
了什么
【在 d*******n 的大作中提到】
: 可能PL还是有些问题，我看了之后，没有impressive的感觉。虽然你进行了一些分析比
: 较，但不知道为什么，总感觉很空。
:
: that
: of
: ”
| | | i*******2
发帖数: 140 | 31 当时的思路就是先用数字这些客观证据论证，再用推荐信这些软证据论证。
【在 s*******i 的大作中提到】
: 我也是这感觉。好像现在对数字有点免疫，尤其数字很多的时候。好像没看明白具体做
: 了什么
| c******t
发帖数: 1162 | 32 非常感谢分享新思路和模板：）但在下愚笨，还是没懂两步法的第二步的精要是啥。就
是整合并系统论证一下claim的三点？
【在 G*******5 的大作中提到】
: 真的是我看错了？我没有看到final merit determination啊。
| i*******2
发帖数: 140 | 33 昨天PP Stopped，今天一早收到邮件已经Approved。 | b*******e
发帖数: 24532 | 34 呵呵，好消息要恭喜一下！
【在 i*******2 的大作中提到】
: 昨天PP Stopped，今天一早收到邮件已经Approved。
| x***h
发帖数: 9020 | 35 恭喜恭喜
【在 i*******2 的大作中提到】
: 昨天PP Stopped，今天一早收到邮件已经Approved。
| s****x
发帖数: 4701 | | b********n
发帖数: 600 | | s****h
发帖数: 1673 | | r**l
发帖数: 300 | | f*****r
发帖数: 993 | | | | a***a
发帖数: 818 | | t*********g
发帖数: 182 | | w******a
发帖数: 362 | 43 恭喜了，战友！
所以说0299不是真杀手，就是一没时间看RL了就喜欢偷懒给人rfe contribution。
【在 i*******2 的大作中提到】
: 昨天PP Stopped，今天一早收到邮件已经Approved。
| s*****6
发帖数: 2379 | | f*****r
发帖数: 993 | | g*******8
发帖数: 292 | | n****e
发帖数: 4990 | | c****l
发帖数: 1280 | | d******i
发帖数: 4222 | 49 cong
【在 i*******2 的大作中提到】
: 昨天PP Stopped，今天一早收到邮件已经Approved。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
