雷死我算了！！！# Joke - 肚皮舞运动
p*z
1 楼
Background:
Now Postdoc at a top US university
PhD received at a US top university
Journal papers >20
Conference >20
Review >30
Book editor 1
Pending patents 2
5 letters from experts and 5 letters from editors
110 total citations-80 independent citations
Claim的三项： Review, authorship 过了；contribution 没过
Part I Analysis 对contribution的总结
This criterion has not been met because the evidence does not show that your
contributions are of major significance. Although you assert that you were
the first to make discoveries, it cannot be concluded that these
contributions are of major significance. You should be able to show, for
instance, how the field was changed as as a result of your work beyond the
incremental improvements in knowledge and understanding expected from valid
original research. Letters from referees may be helpful, but asserting that
your work is of major significance without preexisting, independent,
objective evidence is
insufficient. To assist in determining whether your contributions are
original and of major significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
• Objective demonstrative evidence of the significance of your
contribution to the field.
• Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently
consider your work important.
• Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss your
contributions of major significance.
• Evidence that your major significant contribution(s) has provoked
widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
• Evidence of your 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.
Part II Final Merits Determination
As discussed above, you have not garnered a one-time achievement award or
met at least three of the criteria. Further in each case, the totality of
the evidence must establish ...
A review of the record does not establish that this has been met.
The evidence provided shows that the beneficiary has met some criteria.
However, further documentary evidence is needed to establish that the
beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim.
The record contains evidence that you authored >20 articles as of year 2010
and reviewed >30 manuscripts; however, it could not be determined that you
have authored any articles recently. Publication of one’s findings does not
demonstrate national or international acclaim. While it is apparent that
any article, in order to be accepted in a scientific journal for publication
, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge, it does
not follow that every scientist whose scholarly research is accepted for
publication has made a major contribution to his field. The petitioner’s
work has added to the overall body of knowledge in his field, however this
is to be expected from valid scientific research. While it is apparent that
some scientists have taken note of your work, it cannot be concluded that
you are one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of your
field of endeavor, and cannot be concluded that you have risen to the level
of an individual with extraordinary ability.
Additionally, you have reviewed >30 manuscripts for peer reviewed journals.
However, peer-review is inherent to the field of scientific research, and is
not evidence of national or international acclaim. Simply showing that you
acted as a judge in the past does not set you apart from others in your
field. It must be demonstrated how your selection to serve as a judge of the
work of others in the field helps show your sustained national or
international acclaim. Taken as a whole, the evidence does not demonstrate
that you are one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the
field and have sustained national or international acclaim.
To assist in determining that you have sustained national or international
acclaim and that you have achievements that have been recognized in your
field of expertise indicating that you are one of that small percentage who
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor, you may submit evidence
that you have:
• Reviewed a large number of articles for distinguished journals,
magazines, or editorials in the beneficiary’s same or allied field;
• Consistently published scholarly articles in journals with the
highest factors within the field, and/or on-line or in magazines or
editorials which enjoy high circulation among national or international
readers;
• Been highly cited by other members for their leading and/or
authoritative work in the field.
• Had your work consistently displayed at the top exhibit and
showcase venues throughout the national or international communities for
your field of work.
现在手里还有2封INDEPENDENT 的推荐信。另外因为是PP的，文章,citation, review
在提交后这段时间没有显著增加.
请教版上大牛们，针对我这样的情况，怎样组织材料比较好。顺求祝福，如果APPROVE
了，一定散尽家财发包子
Now Postdoc at a top US university
PhD received at a US top university
Journal papers >20
Conference >20
Review >30
Book editor 1
Pending patents 2
5 letters from experts and 5 letters from editors
110 total citations-80 independent citations
Claim的三项： Review, authorship 过了；contribution 没过
Part I Analysis 对contribution的总结
This criterion has not been met because the evidence does not show that your
contributions are of major significance. Although you assert that you were
the first to make discoveries, it cannot be concluded that these
contributions are of major significance. You should be able to show, for
instance, how the field was changed as as a result of your work beyond the
incremental improvements in knowledge and understanding expected from valid
original research. Letters from referees may be helpful, but asserting that
your work is of major significance without preexisting, independent,
objective evidence is
insufficient. To assist in determining whether your contributions are
original and of major significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
• Objective demonstrative evidence of the significance of your
contribution to the field.
• Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently
consider your work important.
• Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss your
contributions of major significance.
• Evidence that your major significant contribution(s) has provoked
widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
• Evidence of your 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.
Part II Final Merits Determination
As discussed above, you have not garnered a one-time achievement award or
met at least three of the criteria. Further in each case, the totality of
the evidence must establish ...
A review of the record does not establish that this has been met.
The evidence provided shows that the beneficiary has met some criteria.
However, further documentary evidence is needed to establish that the
beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim.
The record contains evidence that you authored >20 articles as of year 2010
and reviewed >30 manuscripts; however, it could not be determined that you
have authored any articles recently. Publication of one’s findings does not
demonstrate national or international acclaim. While it is apparent that
any article, in order to be accepted in a scientific journal for publication
, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge, it does
not follow that every scientist whose scholarly research is accepted for
publication has made a major contribution to his field. The petitioner’s
work has added to the overall body of knowledge in his field, however this
is to be expected from valid scientific research. While it is apparent that
some scientists have taken note of your work, it cannot be concluded that
you are one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of your
field of endeavor, and cannot be concluded that you have risen to the level
of an individual with extraordinary ability.
Additionally, you have reviewed >30 manuscripts for peer reviewed journals.
However, peer-review is inherent to the field of scientific research, and is
not evidence of national or international acclaim. Simply showing that you
acted as a judge in the past does not set you apart from others in your
field. It must be demonstrated how your selection to serve as a judge of the
work of others in the field helps show your sustained national or
international acclaim. Taken as a whole, the evidence does not demonstrate
that you are one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the
field and have sustained national or international acclaim.
To assist in determining that you have sustained national or international
acclaim and that you have achievements that have been recognized in your
field of expertise indicating that you are one of that small percentage who
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor, you may submit evidence
that you have:
• Reviewed a large number of articles for distinguished journals,
magazines, or editorials in the beneficiary’s same or allied field;
• Consistently published scholarly articles in journals with the
highest factors within the field, and/or on-line or in magazines or
editorials which enjoy high circulation among national or international
readers;
• Been highly cited by other members for their leading and/or
authoritative work in the field.
• Had your work consistently displayed at the top exhibit and
showcase venues throughout the national or international communities for
your field of work.
现在手里还有2封INDEPENDENT 的推荐信。另外因为是PP的，文章,citation, review
在提交后这段时间没有显著增加.
请教版上大牛们，针对我这样的情况，怎样组织材料比较好。顺求祝福，如果APPROVE
了，一定散尽家财发包子
