提交时具体情况： ｐｕｂｌｉｃａｔｉｏｎ：１３篇 引用：１５７ （现在１７９） ｒｅｖｉｅｗ比较少：６篇 ５封推荐信： ３封独立 ＩＯ 给了ＮＯＩＤ， ＮＳＣ的， 律师是Ｆ家 总体ｆｉｎａｌ ｍｅｒｉｔ是it does not establish that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field。
关于Ｃｉｔａｔｉｏｎ的评价 Q1: The record shows that the beneficiary has published 13 scholarly papers in the academic field that have garnered 157 citations (not excluding self- citations), but you have not demonstrated how this frequency of citations to his work reflects that he is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field. You have not provided, for example, information that compares his citations with those of internationally recognized researchers in the field Q2. Although citations show that the beneficiary’s research has received some attention, you have not established that the frequency of citations to the beneficiary’s work set him apart from the rest of the academic field. As such, submit Google Scholar profiles of outstanding researchers in his specific fields, his letter of recommendation authors and co-authors Q3. It must be noted that the beneficiary has not published any research in the academic field since 2016, which coincides with his employment at your company. This establishes that the beneficiary has only been making contributions to your company and that he has not been active in the academic field for several years. Q4. While footnoted citations have values in showing that other researchers have referred to the beneficiary’s work, those citations do not elevate the beneficiary above the countless other published researchers whose work is cited in thousands of scholarly journals every year. Q5. The beneficiary’s research being cited internationally does not distinguish his research as internationally outstanding, since international citations are a common occurrence in the academic field. You have not demonstrated how international citations are uncommon in the beneficiary’s field or that they indicated that they indicate he is an outstanding researcher. Q6. The record shows that the beneficiary made presentations at conferences in his field, but such activity is expected of one of his professions and does not distinguish him from peer researchers in the field. This evidence does not reflect that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field. Q7. The journal impact factor (or prestige of a conference proceeding) has no probative value for measuring the beneficiary’s contribution to the academic field. To be sure, the number of independent citations of a scholar’s work, not a publication’s, is the most objective, reliable gauge in determining the beneficiary’s influence on the academic field.
关于ｐｅｅｒ ｒｅｖｉｅｗ的评价 Q1: The record shows that the beneficiary served as a reviewer in the academic field, but the evidence does not establish that his participation in the widespread peer-view process (a routine process in the field relying on many scientists) exceeds that of other researchers or reflects international recognition.
Q3. The beneficiary first published research in 2011, with his highest cited paper published in 2013. Based upon the beneficiary's number of reviews from 2011 to the filing of the petition, it does not appear that the beneficiary’s expert review is highly sought after by scholarly journals or conferences. If the beneficiary’s research is Indeed influential to the field, evidence in the record would show more journals and conferences are seeking his expert review. Also, there is no record of the beneficiary review since 2016, which establishes that he has an inconsistent record of reviewing peer research.
Q２: USCIS acknowledges that one must be qualified and recognized by someone to review other scholar’s papers, such a role does not set the beneficiary apart from countless other peer reviewers in the field. Notwithstanding, it must be noted that Dr. ＸＸ’s letter was not on the letterhead of ＜ｊｏｕｒｎａｌ ｎａｍｅ＞, which calls into question whether his statements are truly those of ＜ｊｏｕｒｎａｌ ｎａｍｅ＞. Furthermore, USCIS was unable to verify that Dr. ＸＸis an editorial board member for ＜ｊｏｕｒｎａｌ ｎａｍｅ＞. or any of its journals.
提交时具体情况：
ｐｕｂｌｉｃａｔｉｏｎ：１３篇
引用：１５７ （现在１７９）
ｒｅｖｉｅｗ比较少：６篇
５封推荐信： ３封独立
ＩＯ 给了ＮＯＩＤ， ＮＳＣ的， 律师是Ｆ家
总体ｆｉｎａｌ ｍｅｒｉｔ是it does not establish that the beneficiary is
recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field。
Ｃｌａｉｍ了老三样，说达到要求，但是每一项都不强。证明不了ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｏｕｔｓｔａｎｄｉｎｇ
律师意见是ＩＯ主要在说ｃｉｔａｔｉｏｎ，让我弄个更详细的引用地区学校状况，让后再弄三封独立推荐信。感觉很难证明我的引用比大多数人多，也很难证明国际引用是在我的领域不常见。
请问大家怎么看？ 多谢大家了！！
关于Ｃｉｔａｔｉｏｎ的评价
Q1: The record shows that the beneficiary has published 13 scholarly papers in the academic field that have garnered 157 citations (not excluding self-
citations), but you have not demonstrated how this frequency of citations to his work reflects that he is recognized internationally as outstanding in
the academic field. You have not provided, for example, information that
compares his citations with those of internationally recognized researchers in the field
Q2. Although citations show that the beneficiary’s research has received
some attention, you have not established that the frequency of citations to the beneficiary’s work set him apart from the rest of the academic field.
As such, submit Google Scholar profiles of outstanding researchers in his
specific fields, his letter of recommendation authors and co-authors
Q3. It must be noted that the beneficiary has not published any research in the academic field since 2016, which coincides with his employment at your
company. This establishes that the beneficiary has only been making
contributions to your company and that he has not been active in the
academic field for several years.
Q4. While footnoted citations have values in showing that other researchers have referred to the beneficiary’s work, those citations do not elevate the beneficiary above the countless other published researchers whose work is
cited in thousands of scholarly journals every year.
Q5. The beneficiary’s research being cited internationally does not
distinguish his research as internationally outstanding, since international citations are a common occurrence in the academic field. You have not
demonstrated how international citations are uncommon in the beneficiary’s field or that they indicated that they indicate he is an outstanding
researcher.
Q6. The record shows that the beneficiary made presentations at conferences in his field, but such activity is expected of one of his professions and
does not distinguish him from peer researchers in the field. This evidence
does not reflect that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as
outstanding in his academic field.
Q7. The journal impact factor (or prestige of a conference proceeding) has
no probative value for measuring the beneficiary’s contribution to the
academic field. To be sure, the number of independent citations of a scholar’s work, not a publication’s, is the most objective, reliable gauge in
determining the beneficiary’s influence on the academic field.
关于ｐｅｅｒ ｒｅｖｉｅｗ的评价
Q1: The record shows that the beneficiary served as a reviewer in the
academic field, but the evidence does not establish that his participation
in the widespread peer-view process (a routine process in the field relying on many scientists) exceeds that of other researchers or reflects
international recognition.
Q3. The beneficiary first published research in 2011, with his highest cited paper published in 2013. Based upon the beneficiary's number of reviews
from 2011 to the filing of the petition, it does not appear that the
beneficiary’s expert review is highly sought after by scholarly journals or conferences. If the beneficiary’s research is Indeed influential to the
field, evidence in the record would show more journals and conferences are
seeking his expert review. Also, there is no record of the beneficiary
review since 2016, which establishes that he has an inconsistent record of
reviewing peer research.
Q２: USCIS acknowledges that one must be qualified and recognized by someone to review other scholar’s papers, such a role does not set the beneficiary apart from countless other peer reviewers in the field. Notwithstanding, it must be noted that Dr. ＸＸ’s letter was not on the letterhead of ＜ｊｏｕｒｎａｌ ｎａｍｅ＞, which calls into question whether his statements are
truly those of ＜ｊｏｕｒｎａｌ ｎａｍｅ＞. Furthermore, USCIS was unable
to verify that Dr. ＸＸis an editorial board member for ＜ｊｏｕｒｎａｌ ｎａｍｅ＞. or any of its journals.
祝福，可能需要深挖一两个亮点吧，这个因人而异。
泛泛的讨论早就不流行了。我当时申请就是着重一个亮点，实际上也只有那一个。
话说回来，这条件应该1b稳过。
review太少，不要强调
citation如果比领域内人多，着重强调。挖掘一下被引用最多那几篇文章
说起亮点，还真想不到什么。有一篇文章引用过百，能算作亮点吗？怎么能统计出来领域内的别人的引用，或者所有文章的引用，然后做一个统计分析？