The record indicated Dr AAA’s Google Csholar profile has 279 citations an h-index of o and ani10-index of 9. The six letters of support were very complementary to his work, for example, his postdoctoral supervisor, Dr BBB Northwestern University, described Dr AAA’s work in the field of lipid- reactive T cell biology and his contributions to a 2017 publication in the Journal of Clinical Investigation which showed beneficiary’s name listed as the fourth author of eight authors. Although the evidence indicated Dr AAA ’s work has garnered the attention of others in the field, other researchers have cited her work and the letters of endorsement were very positive, letters alone are insufficient to prove the beneficiary’s original contributions to the field. It was also noted that the beneficiary presented her work at conferences, but this does not demonstrate original contributions, because there is no way to determine a conference presentation or conference paper’s originality or influence on the field.
RD: 10/2/2020
PP: 11/28/2020
RFE: 12/8/2020 officer 0738 （NSC）
Background:
病毒学博士, 免疫博士后5年
文章状况: 共12篇，第一作者一篇， 其余为co-author，另外有一篇共第一的文章很快出来
引用: google scholar 279 （申请时），294 （current）
审稿：大概60篇论文， 有10篇左右是3-5影响因子 其余1-3
推荐信， 其中一封来自博士导师（德国），一封来自目前的老板（美国西北大学），
独立推荐信一封来自Harvard， 一封
来自美国，一封来自德国 还有一封来自意大利
专利无
没有强劲的背景，引用也一般，但是还是想试试EB1a，自己做的DIY，过的朋友发给的
模版。目前状态rfe。请各位大神朋友能够指点迷津。感激不尽！
以下为0738的comment （全文在附件也有，为了方便我把他粘到这里）：
The record indicated Dr AAA’s Google Csholar profile has 279 citations an h-index of o and ani10-index of 9. The six letters of support were very
complementary to his work, for example, his postdoctoral supervisor, Dr BBB Northwestern University, described Dr AAA’s work in the field of lipid-
reactive T cell biology and his contributions to a 2017 publication in the
Journal of Clinical Investigation which showed beneficiary’s name listed as the fourth author of eight authors. Although the evidence indicated Dr AAA
’s work has garnered the attention of others in the field, other
researchers have cited her work and the letters of endorsement were very
positive, letters alone are insufficient to prove the beneficiary’s
original contributions to the field. It was also noted that the beneficiary presented her work at conferences, but this does not demonstrate original
contributions, because there is no way to determine a conference
presentation or conference paper’s originality or influence on the field.
再次感谢大神
看信感觉比纯模板RFE稍微强一点，看着像是人写的话。你的背景客观在NSC不是很强，如果在原版提交的时候没有分析具体引用的话，可以试试选一些notable citation具体分析，不要罗列数字，如果不是全国级别会议的大奖，就不要着重提了。这个IO感觉比纯模板的要好一点，不怕耽误时间就试一下回复，当然NSC的客观事实要认清，别抱希
望。
这个RFE感觉挺positive的，还给了具体的supporting文件的list。 可以分析一下引用，不同的地域，引用你文章的人说说他们是怎么用在自己的研究上。。
我就是倒在0738手里的。你这RFE不错了好歹不是模版， 也没要 thousands of
citations, 应该有希望
感谢各位的建议 谢谢