D90和CCAV杠上了# PhotoGear - 摄影器材
s*y
1 楼
看起来跟理工科博士毕业、搞科研有关系的有五条：
1. Published materials about the alien, in any language, provided it has
been translated into English, in professional or major trade publications or
major newspaper about the alien;
2. Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field;
3. 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;
4. Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field,
in professional or major trade publications or other major media;
5. Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation;
我理解第2，3，4条就是版上所说的老三样，对吧？
第2条original contributions的支持材料有：同行推荐信，被引用亮点，邀请报告等。
第3条a judge of the work of others的支持材料有：杂志编辑推荐信。
第4条authorship of scholarly articles的支持材料有：自己发表的文章。
关于第1条Published materials about the alien，看到有的petition letter模版用
被引用亮点来支持第1条，说明自己被别人文章提到。这是不是不够充分？而且和第2条
内容重复。我理解是要被新闻媒体，例如电视、网络、杂志等报道了才行。
关于第5条a leading or critical role，某些模板用在博士后老板的科研组里perform
critical role来支持，是不是不够充分？
如果同时claim五条，似乎中的机会多些，但阐述重点就不够突出了，跟只claim老三样
比，哪个好些？
1. Published materials about the alien, in any language, provided it has
been translated into English, in professional or major trade publications or
major newspaper about the alien;
2. Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field;
3. 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;
4. Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field,
in professional or major trade publications or other major media;
5. Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation;
我理解第2，3，4条就是版上所说的老三样，对吧？
第2条original contributions的支持材料有：同行推荐信，被引用亮点，邀请报告等。
第3条a judge of the work of others的支持材料有：杂志编辑推荐信。
第4条authorship of scholarly articles的支持材料有：自己发表的文章。
关于第1条Published materials about the alien，看到有的petition letter模版用
被引用亮点来支持第1条，说明自己被别人文章提到。这是不是不够充分？而且和第2条
内容重复。我理解是要被新闻媒体，例如电视、网络、杂志等报道了才行。
关于第5条a leading or critical role，某些模板用在博士后老板的科研组里perform
critical role来支持，是不是不够充分？
如果同时claim五条，似乎中的机会多些，但阐述重点就不够突出了，跟只claim老三样
比，哪个好些？