EB1B NOID 求助

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.

是哪个IO？有些IO应该withdraw然后重新file。。。

zangmahit53 发表于 2020/06/09 05:55:16
多谢各位了。建议都非常好！

只有一个多月时间处理，不知道还能否找到更多的ｒｅｖｉｅｗ。　目前公司主要是做生产，很难...

要是在企业，一定要挖应用。看你做的工作对公司产品和生产的贡献
为啥只有一个多月，我是1A的RFE，三个月呀

Disclaimer：这只是我的个人观点，不是专业的法律建议。

感觉楼主的profile很强啊。引用方面，我觉得最重要的是质量而不是数量。提供一些论证引用的方法，希望能帮助到你。
1）是不是有工业界或者政府的实际引用？比如说NASA， Google之类的。
2）有没有大佬的多个研究项目中提到你的引用？比如说一个lab连续几年引用你的文章，比如你的文章inspire了某个faculty的PhD Thesis。
3）可以整理一个Exhibit来列举一下你的引用在专业方向的排名。可以用多个source，比如Google Scholar, Microsoft Research, etc.,

1B我不太懂，不过这个貌似不难吧，搞个油灯图，说说13篇文章都是国际刊物，搞几封国外推荐信

disclaimer: 试着回答下，非专业建议

review少了点，但是只要脸皮够厚，这个增加起来比publication和citation快太多了。。。另外听说1B最好claim两项而不是三项？感觉这个数字对1b来说够了，虽然不了解LZ的专业

citation:
1.没有把你的citation和领域内其它人比较，这个。。就比较下，看有没有地方可以找到相应数据，大体策略是把方向说得细一些，人尽量少一些，让你citation数量的percentile比较靠前
2.如楼上所说，用油灯图说明你的国际影响力
3.强调重要的引用，比如引用你的文章发表在高水平刊物上，引用你的文章的人是名校名教授之类的。。。专利引用有没有？军方引用有没有？
4.工作之后没有再发过文章这个有点伤，想办法搞一篇？

review
1.想办法找review机会
2.如果有其它客观证据可以证明review的可以用，比如说会议的论文集是包含reviewer列表的
3.推荐信没有letterhead可能是个问题，为啥没用letterhead?
4.无法verify editorial board member是什么原因？最好的方法是让chief editor写个推荐信

多谢各位了。建议都非常好！

只有一个多月时间处理，不知道还能否找到更多的ｒｅｖｉｅｗ。　目前公司主要是做生产，很难再搞ｐａｐｅｒ了。看来着重在多挖掘引用吧。

大家有没有什么比较快捷的办法做引用排名统计。比如我有一篇文章引用较多，怎么能做一个统计数据说明在领域内排在前列？

披头散发 发表于 2020-6-9 08:46
要是在企业，一定要挖应用。看你做的工作对公司产品和生产的贡献
为啥只有一个多月，我是1A的RFE，三个月 ...

三个月，这么久。不清楚为什么只有一个多月

zangmahit53 发表于 2020/06/09 05:55:16
多谢各位了。建议都非常好！

只有一个多月时间处理，不知道还能否找到更多的ｒｅｖｉｅｗ。　目前公司主要是做生产，很难...

做一个同journal所有文章引用的分布，然后说你这个在top1%？或者同领域内近几年发表的文章之类的。

zangmahit53 发表于 2020/06/09 14:24:06
三个月，这么久。不清楚为什么只有一个多月

说真的，真的深挖应用，在企业里就是没有科研任务，但是工作运用到实际产品和生产是很普遍的而且据说比引用好使。
我是4月底收到RFE, 7/25之前交，为啥你这个这个快