2比们说汉语咋喜欢在动词前面加个"有"？ (转载)# Joke - 肚皮舞运动
H*3
1 楼
Case算是较弱的，专业EE，国内土博，现top60大学博后，博后三年了。
Publication：21 English journal papers (15 as the first-author, and 6 as a
co-author)，8 English proceeding papers (3 as the first-author, and 4 as a
co-author), 3 English conference abstracts, 12 Chinese journal papers (3 as
first author), and 3 Chinese proceeding papers (2 as the first author, and 1
as a co-author) in nationally renowned conferences, a co-authored book
chapter, , 4 chinese patent applications.
Citation: 150+，All are independent from English papers, about 130+ from
first authored papers.
Review: 34 times for 18 journals; 1 time (about 20 abstracts) for a
conference. Citation 和Review 都分布在20多个国家。
Reference letters: 7 (one from present supervisor, one from previous
supervisor, 5 independent)
IO承认了authorship, review, 但是说没有足够的证据证明contribution of major
significance. 提供的材料中还有一个小奖，几个网站报道，以及证明自己对目前工作
的重要性的材料，本来这些都是用来加强contribution的，结果也让IO给揪出来分别以
“Award”“media report”和“leading role”给否了，加上“contribution”相当
于否了四项。
那三项不准备回复了，对于contribution，IO的理由是“This criterion has not
been met because the evidence submitted does not show that the beneficiary’
s contribution are considered to be of major significance in the field of
endeavor. All of the recommendation letters provide a statement about the
beneficiary’s talent and expertise in his field but fail to provide any
specific examples how this expertise has been an original contribution to
the field. In addition, the submitted evidence does not show that the
beneficiary’s contribution are considered to be of major significance to
the field of the endeavor. The submitted material does not discuss the
merits of the beneficiary’s work, his standing in the field, or any
significant impact that his work had on the field.”
Moreover, participation in scientific conferences and symposia is routine
and expected in the scientific community. The record has not established
that the beneficiary’s said new findings, models, methods, etc., that may
eventually have applications, have already impacted the field and elevate
him to be a level at or above almost all others in his field at the national
or international level. The fact that the beneficiary was among the first
to make a newdiscovery or develop a new model carries little weight. Of far
greater importance in his proceeding is the impact that beneficiary’s work
has already had on the overall field”
剩下的部分就都是模板了。说可以提供：
Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the beneficiary’s
contribution 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
evidence may include but is not limited to:
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
o Licensed technology being used by others;
o Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the field.
看了以前否contribution的帖子，感觉IO的理由都大同小异。大家帮着给支支招吧。除
了常用的citation这些，还有什么能证明'major significance'呢？
然后是totality,感觉也和以前的帖子上说的基本一样。感觉IO没怎么仔细看材料，用
的是模板。
最后给了84天提供更detail的材料。大部分人是一个月，我这是接近三个月，基本上和
不少人不PP时间差不多，郁闷。
当时PP的时候，通过潜水观察很多人都是8，9个月，还有十个月多的。想想干脆pp算了
。干等下去急人不说，最终也有可能是RFE。PP之后，又看到有人说前阵子TSC抽调了人
去处理EB2的485，导致EB1的140拖到了十个月，现在他们努力再把时间缩短到四个月。
得，这个时间点应该不是PP的时候，果真拿到了RFE。但也有可能case还是不够强的缘
故，硬货少，没抓住IO的眼球。
Publication：21 English journal papers (15 as the first-author, and 6 as a
co-author)，8 English proceeding papers (3 as the first-author, and 4 as a
co-author), 3 English conference abstracts, 12 Chinese journal papers (3 as
first author), and 3 Chinese proceeding papers (2 as the first author, and 1
as a co-author) in nationally renowned conferences, a co-authored book
chapter, , 4 chinese patent applications.
Citation: 150+，All are independent from English papers, about 130+ from
first authored papers.
Review: 34 times for 18 journals; 1 time (about 20 abstracts) for a
conference. Citation 和Review 都分布在20多个国家。
Reference letters: 7 (one from present supervisor, one from previous
supervisor, 5 independent)
IO承认了authorship, review, 但是说没有足够的证据证明contribution of major
significance. 提供的材料中还有一个小奖，几个网站报道，以及证明自己对目前工作
的重要性的材料，本来这些都是用来加强contribution的，结果也让IO给揪出来分别以
“Award”“media report”和“leading role”给否了，加上“contribution”相当
于否了四项。
那三项不准备回复了，对于contribution，IO的理由是“This criterion has not
been met because the evidence submitted does not show that the beneficiary’
s contribution are considered to be of major significance in the field of
endeavor. All of the recommendation letters provide a statement about the
beneficiary’s talent and expertise in his field but fail to provide any
specific examples how this expertise has been an original contribution to
the field. In addition, the submitted evidence does not show that the
beneficiary’s contribution are considered to be of major significance to
the field of the endeavor. The submitted material does not discuss the
merits of the beneficiary’s work, his standing in the field, or any
significant impact that his work had on the field.”
Moreover, participation in scientific conferences and symposia is routine
and expected in the scientific community. The record has not established
that the beneficiary’s said new findings, models, methods, etc., that may
eventually have applications, have already impacted the field and elevate
him to be a level at or above almost all others in his field at the national
or international level. The fact that the beneficiary was among the first
to make a newdiscovery or develop a new model carries little weight. Of far
greater importance in his proceeding is the impact that beneficiary’s work
has already had on the overall field”
剩下的部分就都是模板了。说可以提供：
Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the beneficiary’s
contribution 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
evidence may include but is not limited to:
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
o Licensed technology being used by others;
o Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the field.
看了以前否contribution的帖子，感觉IO的理由都大同小异。大家帮着给支支招吧。除
了常用的citation这些，还有什么能证明'major significance'呢？
然后是totality,感觉也和以前的帖子上说的基本一样。感觉IO没怎么仔细看材料，用
的是模板。
最后给了84天提供更detail的材料。大部分人是一个月，我这是接近三个月，基本上和
不少人不PP时间差不多，郁闷。
当时PP的时候，通过潜水观察很多人都是8，9个月，还有十个月多的。想想干脆pp算了
。干等下去急人不说，最终也有可能是RFE。PP之后，又看到有人说前阵子TSC抽调了人
去处理EB2的485，导致EB1的140拖到了十个月，现在他们努力再把时间缩短到四个月。
得，这个时间点应该不是PP的时候，果真拿到了RFE。但也有可能case还是不够强的缘
故，硬货少，没抓住IO的眼球。
