当前在线人数15461
首页 - 分类讨论区 - 海外生活 - 落地生根版 -阅读文章
未名交友
[更多]
[更多]
文章阅读:贡献EB1A RFE及答复-超长合贴
[同主题阅读] [版面: 落地生根] [作者:frankwangy] , 2010年06月05日00:26:41
frankwangy
进入未名形象秀
我的博客
[上篇] [下篇] [同主题上篇] [同主题下篇]

发信人: frankwangy (frank), 信区: Immigration
标  题: 贡献EB1A RFE及答复-超长合贴
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sat Jun  5 00:26:41 2010, 美东)

应版主Aprilsummer要求.将最近的帖子合起来,超长, 容易让人打磕睡,请谅解.

Timeline:
2006.6-EB2 (LD), NSC 辖区
2007.8-485
2010.3.16-EB1A 140: efile, PP, DIY, TSC (本属NSC 辖区)
2010.3.25-RFE
2010.4.15-Replied RFE
2010.4.27-140 approved
2010.5-Requested relink by phone, then by mail, and email.  Still pending.

一直想在140批后贡献此REF及答复来回报本版, 但一直太忙. 借这Memorial day
weekend 给大家发发. 并借此感谢Laoda555, Superant, Hotmale, banCDM, Julang,
Kevinshen,diudiudiu, 等等及好多记不住名的侠士才女的无私帮助与启发.

背景简介: US PhD, 2007
Referred papers:
English-16 (11 1st authored, all top journals, total cites ~260, independent
cites >200);
Chinese-6 (citations not claimed)

Invited book chapters-3

Conference talks and posters-20

Review:33 different manuscripts/13 journals (initial submission);
39 different manuscripts/15 journals (RFE)

6 reference letters (5 independent; 1 Korea; 1 Israel; 1 national lab; 1
member of AAAS)

Claimed: contribution, authorship, and review (judge of the work of others)

本以为publication and review肯定过. 但全部三条都被RFE. 感觉IO没仔细看
petition letter, 潦草给一个模板式的RFE. 感觉petition letter写得还好,除了有点
长24页. 最大的缺点(教训)是Exhibit TAB太多, 虽分为三大本, 但每本 TAB 都显得密
密麻麻, IO 懒得看.


REVIEW:

IO: (1).    Further evidence is required to show that you (the beneficiary)
are of national or international renown in your field. Please submit at
least three of the following :

IO: (d) If you have served as a judge, reviewer, editor or in any other
capacity
that required you to judge the work of others in your field, submit clear
proof of this, including evidence, such as media articles, to demonstrate
the renown, acclaim and media coverage received by those events in which you
served.

My response: Thank you so much for requesting more details about my serving
as a reviewer to judge the work of others in my field, which is one of the
three criteria that I claimed in my petition to support my eligibility for
Alien of Extraordinary Ability.

I have served as a reviewer for 15 journals (13 at my initial petition) and
reviewed total 39 manuscripts (33 at my initial petition).  You may find
proof of my serving as a reviewer for the 13 journals in Exhibits 80-92 (
previously submitted) that include copies of one invitation email and one
acknowledgement email from the editors for each of the 33 manuscripts that I
have reviewed.  Proof for the 2 additional journals and 6 additional
manuscripts could be found in Exhibit S1 that includes copies of one
invitation email and one acknowledgement email for each of the 6 additional
manuscripts that I have reviewed after my initial petition was submitted.
The 15 journals are:
1.    Angewandte Chemie-International Edition
2.    Chemistry of Materials
3.    Advanced Materials
4.    Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences
5.    Chemistry-A European Journal
6.    ACS Nano
7.    Crystal Growth & Design
8.    New Journal of Chemistry
9.    Journal of the American Ceramic Society
10.    Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects
11.    Journal of Colloidal & Interface Science
12.    Journal of Alloys and Compounds
13.    Nanoscale
14.    Chemical Communications (ChemComm)
15.    Journal of Materials Chemistry

These journals are internationally circulated and operated by world’s
leading organizations or publishers including American Chemical Society (ACS
), Wiley-VCH and Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC).  You may find general
information about these journals and their publishers in Exhibits 97 & 104-
115 (previously submitted) for journal’s impact factors and total citation
rankings, and in Exhibits 118 & 122 (previously submitted) for the
introductions of the publishers.

To demonstrate the national and international renown of these journals for
which I have participated as a judge, I re-organized the journals’ general
information as Exhibit S2 to emphasize the worldwide renown of selected
journals by highlighting their high impact factors, very top ranks based on
total citations, and being owned by libraries worldwide.  Some highlights in
Exhibit S2 are:
•    Angewandte Chemie-International Edition holds an impact factor of
10.879, is the #2 most-cited journal among 127 internationally circulated
journals under the category of multidisciplinary chemistry, and is owned by
850 libraries worldwide;
•    Chemistry of Materials holds an impact factor of 5.046, is the #1
most-cited journal among 192 internationally circulated journals under the
category of multidisciplinary materials science, and is owned by 475
libraries worldwide;
•    Advanced Materials holds an impact factor of 8.191, is the #2
most-cited journal among 192 internationally circulated journals under the
category of multidisciplinary materials science, and is owned by 289
libraries worldwide.

To demonstrate the renown and acclaim I received by serving as a reviewer of
scientific journals, I assembled the letters from 10 editors-in-chief or
editors of the journals as Exhibit S3 in which my exceptional service as a
top ranking reviewer has been highly acclaimed.  Some highlights in Exhibit
S3 are:
•    Professor AA (Editor-in-Chief for AA) acknowledged my exceptional
service and that the frequency and quality of my reviewing efforts have
placed me as one of the top 15% of reviewers for the journal.
•    Professor BB (Editor-in-Chief for BB, a member of the National
Academy of Engineering and a past president of the BB), Dr. CC (Deputy
Editor of CC) and Professor DD (Editor for DD) all recognized that my
contributions as a reviewer and my expert opinions and comments have helped
to maintain the high quality and leading status of the journals.
•    Professor EE (Editor-in-Chief for EE) acclaimed that I am
certainly among the journal's most highly valued reviewers.

To further demonstrate the national and international renown I received by
serving as a reviewer, I listed the 39 manuscripts that I have reviewed in
Exhibit S4 that display the countries and regions of the institutions where
the research work was performed, and the titles or positions of the senior
or corresponding authors if available.  Some highlights in Exhibit S4 are:
•    The 39 manuscripts that I have reviewed were submitted by
research groups from 9 countries and regions:
1.    USA
2.    China
3.    Australia
4.    France
5.    Korea
6.    Taiwan
7.    Belgium
8.    New Zealand
9.    Japan
•    Some of these manuscripts were submitted from highly reputed
researchers, such as Professor FF at FF, a member of the National Academy of
Sciences, Professor GG, the director for GG and Associate Editor for GG,
and Professor HH, the HH Professor at HH.

What frequency has the beneficiary been invited to be the judge of the work
of others?

I have been frequently invited to be the judge of the work of others.  To
demonstrate the frequency, the following two facts are provided as evidence
in Exhibit S5:
•    I have reviewed 15 manuscripts for XX since 2007, and the
frequency and quality of my reviewing efforts have earned me a place as one
of the top 15% of reviewers for the journal as stated in the thank-you
letter from Professor AA, the journal’s Editor-in-Chief.
•    I reviewed 19 manuscripts in the year of 2009 and 10 manuscripts
in the first 3.5 months of 2010.  It is foreseeable that the high frequency
I serve as a reviewer will be retained or raised (Fig. 1).


Fig. 1 Numbers of manuscripts reviewed in specified year(s). The light
diagonal indicates the predicted total number for year 2010 based on the
number for the first 3.5 months of the year.


IO: Was the beneficiary asked to judge the work of others because of his
extraordinary ability in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology? If so,
please provide evidence of this.

My response:  YES.  I was asked to judge the work of others because of my
extraordinary ability in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology.
Evidence of this includes 7 letters from the editors and one witness letter
from an independent, distinguished expert in Exhibit S6.  Some highlights in
Exhibit S6 include:
•    Professor II (Editor of II) claimed that I am one of the top
experts in the field of II;
•    Professor JJ (Editor-in-Chief for JJ, a member of the National
Academy of Engineering and a past president of JJ) regarded me as a highly
credited and well-recognized expert in the field of JJ;
•    Professor KK (Editor for KK) testified that it was my proven
track of record of exceptional academic achievements in the field of KK that
has made me a highly qualified peer reviewer for the journal;
•    Professor LL (a member of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, associate editor for the LL) acknowledged in his witness letter
that my actively serving as a reviewer in the journals of high impact is a
special recognition of the exceptional achievements I has made in my field
because only the top experts in each specific area are qualified and chose
to serve, in particular for these highly prestigious journals, as reviewers
to judge other people’s work.


IO: How many reviewers are there for X, Y, Z, S, etc?

My response:  Seven response emails and one confirmation letter from the
editors of the journals to address how many reviewers there are for their
journals were submitted in Exhibit S7.  A brief summary is:
•    MM has 250 peer reviewers whom the journal contacted over the
past five years.  The total number of manuscripts received in 2009 was 13,
for one of which I served as a reviewer;
•    NN has between 500-1000 active reviewers in 2009;
•    OO has ca. 5000 reviewers in the database;
•    PP has ca. 4000 active referees;
•    QQ has 1719 active reviewers in 2009;
•    RR has 1247 active reviewers in 2009;
•    SS has ca. 2000 reviewers;
•    TT has ca. 4000 reviewers in the database.


IO:  What are the specific criteria used by these publications to appoint
reviewers of their proposed publications?

My response: The editors-in-chief or the editors from 8 of the 15 journals
for which I serve as a reviewer kindly provided their letters stating the
specific criteria used to appoint reviewers for their publications (Exhibit
S8).  A table that summarizes the reviewer selection criteria of the
journals is also included in Exhibit S8.  Some highlights in Exhibit S8
include:
•    A, B, C, D, E, and F select their reviewers only among top
experts or top scientists or experts with outstanding credentials or those
of the highest caliber in the field;
•    G invites internationally recognized experts in the field to
serve as their reviewers;
•    H only selects those who have the requisite expertise and
experience, as attested to by their scientific publications, to serve as
peer reviewer.


CONTRIBUTION:

IO:  (e) Submit evidence of any major contributions you have made to your
field.

My response: Thank you so much for requesting more details about the major
contributions I have made to my field, which is the second criterion that I
claimed in my petition to support my eligibility for Alien of Extraordinary
Ability.

I have made at least four major contributions to the field of X, which
include:
(a)    I have pioneered and contributed major breakthroughs to X;
(b)    I have solved the decade-long plaguing X in the field;
(c)    I have developed and pioneered the X; and
(d)    I for the first time fabricated X.

The four contributions are detailed as follows with evidences:
(a)    I Have Pioneered and Contributed Major Breakthroughs to X

X are the key building blocks for the next generation of smaller and faster
electronic devices including those used in the high-speed computing and
communication that is of significant importance for national defense.  Prior
to my work, X were primarily obtained through X and were too X to be X.
The unavailability of high-quality, precisely-controlled X components
bottlenecked the construction of next generation of ever shrinking devices.

I have developed and pioneered the X.  The significance of this series of
work is reflected by 6 (4 first-authored) publications in the
internationally circulated, top-notch journals. Copies of the 6 papers can
be found in Exhibits 14, 16, 18-20, 21 (previously submitted).  A list of
the 6 papers including their citation information and a list of the journals
where the 6 papers were published including journal ranks are submitted in
Exhibit S9.  Some highlights in Exhibit S9 included:
•    Three papers in the X, the MOST CITED journal in X.
•    One paper in X, the MOST CITED journal in X.
•    One paper in X, the TOP X journal in X.
•    One paper in X, the MOST CITED journal in X.

Of the 6 papers, one (paper # 1 in Exhibit S9) was highlighted in Vertical
News.  Vertical News is part of NewsRX, which is called by New York Times “
the world's largest producer of weekly health information.”  Vertical News
emphasizes “distribution of valuable information on a global scale” and
helps its readers “stay on top of the technology that is important to them
and makes their business successful.” “Today, Vertical News distribution
reaches a global audience that spans more than 50 countries.” (DIRECT FROM
KEVINSHEN, Exhibit S10)

Of the 6 papers, one (paper # 6 in Exhibit S9) was featured on the cover of
X and ranks the 9th of the most cited papers out of over 6000 papers
published in this journal in the last three years (Exhibit 56, previously
submitted).

This work has been totally cited 178 times in peer-reviewed journals, of
which 46 times are self or coauthor citations and 132 times are independent
citations (Exhibit S9).  In addition, this work has been independently cited
5 times with discussions in books published by world-famous publishers (
Exhibits 66 & 122, previously submitted).  The citations to this work have
been considerably significant considering the facts that most of the 6
papers were published within last 2.5 years and that a scientific paper
usually takes 2-3 years on research.

This work was commented and heavily discussed by Dr. X from the X National
Lab in one of his publications in the X:
“XXXX.” (Exhibit S11).

Several independent, distinguished experts have praised this work as
original contributions of great significance in their witness letters.  Some
are even inspired by the breakthroughs that I contributed for their own
work:
“XXX.”
Dr. X, a distinguished fellow of X (Exhibit 3, previously submitted)

“XXX”
Professor X, Director of X (Exhibit 4, previously submitted)

“XXX”
Professor X, Director for X (Exhibit 2, previously submitted)

“XXX.”
Professor X, Director of X (Exhibit 5, previously submitted)

(b)    I Have Solved the Decade-Long Plaguing X in the Field!

X has been the critically important X.  However, XXX.  This problem had
therefore been plaguing this field for over 10 years!

I for the first time X.  My work frees the X researchers from the decade-
long X.  Given its significance, my results were published in X (the MOST
CITED journal in X), and in X (the MOST CITED journal in X).  Copies of the
2 papers can be found in Exhibits 12 and 13 (previously submitted).  A list
of the 2 papers including their complete citations and a list of the two
journals including journal ranks are submitted in Exhibit S12.  These two
papers were featured in Vertical News (Exhibit S13).

The original contribution and the significance of my X work have been
greatly appreciated by researchers in the field within just 1.5 years of
publication, as demonstrated below:

(1)    This work has been independently cited by top international journals
such as X, X, X, X, and X (Exhibit S12);

(2)    This work has been independently cited by world-leading or senior
scientists (Exhibit S12):
•    Professor X, a member of the National Academy of Sciences (1 time
);
•    Dr. X, a distinguished fellow of X (1 time);
•    Professor X, Director of X (1 time)
•    Professor X, the X Professor at the X (Review article, 1 time);
•    Professor X the X Professor at X (2 times);
•    Professor X at X (4 times);
•    Professor X, the X Professor at X (1 time).
•    Professor X at X (4 times)
•    Professor X at X (1 time)

(3)    In one of his publications, Professor X has cited my findings 6 times
to support the interpretation of his results (Exhibit 69, previously
submitted; Exhibit S14 with the 6 citations highlighted).

(4)    Professor X in one of his papers commented my work:
“XXX” (Exhibit 70, previously submitted; Exhibit S15 with the comments
highlighted).

Several independent, distinguished experts recognized the remarkable
contribution of this work in their witness letters, as follows:

“I handled one of his manuscripts that was submitted to the X.  Every
reviewer put a high value to this manuscript.”  “The work is superb and
highly invaluable to researchers who have long sought X.”
Professor X, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
and an associate editor for X (Exhibit 1, previously submitted)

“Dr. X’s individual contributions towards my own research field are
continuing to grow in importance.  His remarkable work on X has led us to
the X.”
Dr. X, a distinguished fellow of X (Exhibit 3, previously submitted)

“While it has been nearly a decade since X, only now after Dr. X’s work
has the connection between X and X present begun to emerge.”
Professor X, Director of X (Exhibit 5, previously submitted)

(c)    I Have Developed and Pioneered the X

X are critical to the development of X and have been the best X for the X.
XXX.

I, for the first time in the field, X.  Regarding its significance, this
work was published in X (the MOST CITED journal in X).  A copy of the paper
can be found in Exhibit 15 (previously submitted).  Its citation information
and the journal information are submitted in Exhibit S16.  This paper was
highlighted in Vertical News (Exhibit S17).

Most recently, I have greatly simplified X.  Given its importance, this work
was published in X (top 4 journal in X).  A copy of the paper can be found
in Exhibit 11 (previously submitted).  Its citation information and the
journal information are submitted in Exhibit S16.

Dr. X, an independent expert and a distinguished fellow of X, testified his
own work being influenced by my contributions:
“Dr. X’s amazing work began with the X, which have been widely used as X
for X, including by my team at X.” (Exhibit 3, previously submitted)

Professor X, an independent expert and Director of X, highly evaluated my
contributions:
“XXX.” (Exhibit 5, previously submitted)

Regarding my achievements, my Ph.D. X advisor, Professor X, the X Professor
X, commented that:
“Dr. X’s other seminal work is the development and simplification of X.
XXX.  His work has greatly benefited the entire scientific community.” (
Exhibit 6, previously submitted)

(d)    I for the First Time Fabricated X.

X, is very promising for the high-speed computing and communication that
becomes increasingly important for national defense.  I am the first in the
field to achieve X that was published in X (the MOST CITED journal in X).  I
am also the first in the field to achieve X, which was published in X (the
MOST CITED journal in X).  Copies of the 2 papers can be found in Exhibits
17 and 21 (previously submitted).  A list of the 2 papers including their
complete citations and a list of the two journals including journal ranks
are submitted in Exhibit S18.

The two papers were independently cited by scientists from (Exhibit S18)
•    13 institutions worldwide, of which most are world famous, for
example,
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    Philips Research Laboratories, Netherlands
    Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, Korea
    University of California-Berkeley
    Northwestern University
    Tsinghua University, China
    University of Copenhagen, Denmark
•    7 countries:
1.    USA
2.    Netherlands
3.    Brazil
4.    China
5.    Korea
6.    Cyprus
7.    Denmark

An independent expert, Dr. X, a distinguished fellow of X highly praised my
work:
“XXX.” (Exhibit 3, previously submitted)

IO:  Have others emulated your style and technique?

My response:  YES.  X, as the most promising candidate for construction of
next generation of super-small and super-fast devices, have attracted
tremendous attentions from worldwide researchers in the field of X.  A
representative example is that others have emulated my technique to X by
employing X method that I have developed and pioneered.  The X technique was
described and published in 200X (paper #6 in Exhibit S9) in X (the MOST
CITED journal in X) in which X was discussed in detail.  This work was
featured on the cover of X and ranks the 9th of the MOST CITED papers out of
over 6000 papers published in this journal in the last three years (Exhibit
56, previously submitted).

This pioneer work has discovered the use of X.  My subsequent work (that
resulted in 4 papers in the X, 2 papers in X, 1 paper in X, and 1 paper in X
) (Exhibits S9, S12, and S16) has further established that X.  My
groundbreaking findings have received the broad interests in the field of X
as evidenced by the emulation of my X by domestic and international
researchers, of which many are world-leading scientists.  For example,

(1)    Professor X, the X Professor at X has employed the X technique to X (
Exhibit S19):
•    X (X, 2007; 33 total citations, of which 29 are independent
citations);
•    X (X, 2007, 15 total citations, of which 13 are independent
citations);
•    X (X, 2008; 14 total citations, of which 10 are independent
citations);
•    X (X, 2008; 7 total citations, of which 6 are independent
citations);
•    X (X, 2009; 1 total (self) citation)

(2)    Professor X at X has employed the X technique to X (Exhibit S20):
•    X (X, 2008; 15 total citations, of which 12 are independent
citations);
•    A review article focusing on the X discussed my work about X (X,
2008; 23 total citations, of which 19 are independent citations).

(3)    Professor X at X, Germany has employed the X technique to X (X, 2009)
. (Exhibit S21)

(4)    Professor X at X, Australia has employed the X technique to X (X,
2010) (Exhibit S22).

My pioneer work has also initiated active research in national labs (Exhibit
S23).  For example,
Dr. X, has employed the X technique to X (X, 2009).

IO:  Have others gained national or international renown in this field based
on skills you taught them?

My response:  YES.  Others who have emulated my technique or adapted my
methods have gained national or international renown in the field through
their emulated work, as evidenced by the following facts:
(1)    Their related work have been published in prestigious,
internationally circulated and renowned journals including (Exhibits S19-23)
•    X (the #1 MOST CITED journal in X),
•    X (the #1 MOST CITED journal in X),
•    X (the #2 MOST CITED journal in X),
•    X (the #1 MOST CITED journal in X)
•    X (Top X journal in X),
•    X (Top 1 journal in X).
The acceptance standards of these journals are so high that the published
work in these journals is expected to be of great significance and impact to
the field.
(2)    Their published work has received heavy citations worldwide, which
indicates the international acclaim that they have sustained through such
work.  For example,
•    The emulated work by Professor X, the X Professor at X has been
cited totally 71 times, of which 59 times are independent citations that are
from 39 institutions and 16 countries (Exhibit S19).
•    The emulated work by Professor X at X has been cited totally 38
times, of which 31 times are independent citations that are from 17
institutions and 8 countries (Exhibit S20)

Those emulated work published very recently has not yet initiated
significant citations.  It is foreseeable, however, that the high quality
work published in top journals and addressing hot topics such as X will be
receiving substantial recognitions.

IO:  Have you made major contributions to this field in any other ways?
Please explain and provide clear documentary proof in support of your
response.  Please provide more detail regarding this criterion.

My response:  YES.  One of such contributions is that I have helped the
researchers in the field who had sought my data, advice, self-synthesized
reagents, and expertise on their own work (Exhibits 84-92, previously
submitted; Exhibit S24).  Some highlights in Exhibit S24 are as follows:

(1)    Professor X at X sought advice on X.  His student successfully X
based on my advice, as indicated in the appreciation email the student sent
me.
(2)    Professor X at X in a conference asked for my help to X based on an
analytical tool I developed.  He acknowledged my “valuable” help in his
paper published in X.
(3)    Professor X sought my expert opinions on how X.  He published his
results in X, in which he has cited my X work 6 times to support his
findings.  He further sought my expertise on X, and he found the information
and suggestions I provided were very useful.  He has also requested a
sample of X I synthesized, for X.
(4)    A postdoctoral researcher from the group of Professor X (editor for X
) at X asked for help with X.
(5)    A Ph.D. student of Professor X (a member of the National Academy of
Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences) requested my advice
on X.
(6)    Professor X from TX requested for a sample of X for X and sought to
collaborate with our group.

My postdoctoral mentor, Professor X, the X Professor at X commented (Exhibit
6, previously submitted):
“Dr. X has been playing a critical role in training and supervising the
graduate students in my group.  He is a generous and outstanding citizen
within the scientific community by providing his helpful advice, self-
synthesized reagents, and expertise to his fellow researchers in the field.
His expertise, substantial knowledge, and powerful problem-solving skills
in X will be of great value to the United States and his presence here will
benefit the America's prominence in the coming X revolution.”

IO:  What are specific examples of the beneficiary’s efforts which exhibit
the beneficiary is within that small percentage who have risen to the very
top of the field?

My response:  At least two of my efforts exhibit that I am within that small
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field.  These are:

(a)    My Pioneer Work in X is Ranked Very Top in the Field

This work includes 6 (4 first-authored) publications in the top-notch
journals such as X, the MOST CITED journal in X, and X, the MOST CITED
journal in X (Exhibit S9).

This work is ranked at the very top of the field as demonstrated by that all
the 6 articles are ranked at the very top (14%) in terms of total
citations received (Exhibit S25).  For example,
•    My paper published in the X in 2007 (Paper # 1 in Exhibit S25)
has been cited 41 times.  In 2007, there were total 412 papers published
under the subject of “X”.  My paper is the 10th most cited among the 412
papers and thus ranked at the TOP 3%.
•    My paper published in X in 2007 (Paper # 2 in Exhibit S25) has
been cited 52 times.  In 2007, there were total 412 papers published under
the subject of “X”.  My paper is the 5th most cited among the 412 papers
and thus ranked at the TOP 1%.

In addition, one paper (Paper # 4 in Exhibit S25) was featured on the cover
of X and is the 9th the most cited paper out of over 6000 papers published
in this journal in the last three years (Exhibit 56, previously submitted).

Regarding my significant achievements on this work as well as this work’s
tremendous impact on the field, several independent, distinguished experts
have considered me within a small percentage who have risen to the very top
of the field in their witness letters.  For Example,

“Dr. X is truly one of the few very best young scientists with expertise in
X.  His accomplishments and intelligence certainly merit the term “
extraordinary”, deserving of favorable consideration for permanent
residency in the USA.”
Professor X, at the X (Exhibit 2, previously submitted)

“Dr. X is a highly esteemed scientist who has risen to the very top of the
X field.”
Professor X, Director of X (Exhibit 4, previously submitted)

“His achievements could not have been accomplished by most of his peers in
this field and thus retaining professionals with his rare abilities and
background is crucial to creating and sustaining America's prominence in the
coming X revolution.”
Dr. X, a distinguished fellow of X (Exhibit 3, previously submitted)

(b)    I Have Solved the Decade-Long Plaguing X in the Field that No One Had
Solved!
Since its first discovered use in X, X has been widely used and become an
important X in the field of X.  A general search of X in Scopus (a database
from the world-famous publisher Elsevier) has generated a summary of over
1500 articles that were contributed by several thousand researchers (many
are famous) around the world (Exhibit S26).

However, since X was reported in the journal Nature in 200X by Professor X
at X (a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences), no one had been able to solve this problem, despite
thousands of researchers had ever suffered from it.  This problem had been
plaguing this field for over 10 years, until very recently I came across a
solution to it by taking advantage of my outstanding background of X and X.
I believe that this achievement alone has already distinguished me from the
rest of my peers.

An independent expert, Professor X, a member of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences appraise my achievement in his witness letter (Exhibit 1,
previously submitted):
“Dr. X for the first time X.  As an effort to permanently X, he further X.
”  “This was a true tour de force…”

“He clearly stands head and shoulders above most of his peers and should be
recognized as an extraordinary scientist in his field of research.”  “Dr.
Wang has established himself as one of the most productive and outstanding
young researchers I have encountered.”

IO:  What specific factors differentiate the abilities of the beneficiary
from those of other people in the field of X?

My response:  The specific factors that differentiate my abilities from
those of the others include:
(1)    Rare, distinctive, and exceptional training and background over broad
disciplines;
(2)    Critical thinking, wide vision, and creative ideas; and
(3)    Hard working and persistency,
which have been recognized by distinguished experts in the field:

“This was a true tour de force which drew on his unique combination of
insights and outstanding scientific background in X, X, X, and X.”
An independent expert, Professor X, a member of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences (Exhibit 1, previously submitted)

“His outstanding achievements in the field of X are a direct result of his
critical thinking, wide vision, and creative ideas, which ultimately are
built upon his rare, distinctive, and exceptional training and background
over broad disciplines.”  “Dr. X is a hard working, never-say-die
individual who achieves success against heavy odds.”
My postdoctoral mentor, Professor X the X Professor at X (Exhibit 6,
previously submitted)

“His problem-solving ability demonstrated in this single work has been
extraordinary!”  “Dr. Wang has amply demonstrated his extraordinary talent
and skills through his work on X…”  “The prerequisite to achieving
success is the possession of strong X and X backgrounds, and creativity in
their use.”
An independent expert, Professor X (Exhibit 4, previously submitted)

“His success, which I truly believe is attributed to his strong X
background and X skills, is considered one of the biggest advances…”  “
Utilizing his extraordinary problem-solving skills, Dr. X...”
An independent expert, Professor X (Exhibit 5, previously submitted)

“Dr.X’s talents, knowledge, broad-based training, and creativity have well
prepared him …”
Professor X (Exhibit 2, previously submitted)

IO:  How has the beneficiary influenced the field of X so as to establish
the beneficiary’s sustained national or international acclaim and whose
achievements have been recognized in the field?

My response:  I have made several original contributions of tremendous
impact to the field of X, through which I have been recognized in the field
and have sustained national and international acclaim.  Specifically,
(1)    I have an outstanding record of publications in the field of X, which
includes 12 peer-reviewed journal papers (copies submitted previously in
Exhibits 11-22; a list of the 12 papers including citation information
submitted in Exhibit S27), 3 invited book chapters (Exhibits 33-35,
previously submitted), and 13 conference abstracts (Exhibits 37-44, 47-51,
previously submitted).

(2)    The recognition of my achievements in the field is demonstrated by
the fact that my 12 peer-reviewed journal papers in the field of X have been
totally cited 227 times, of which 53 times are self or coauthor citations
and 173 times are independent citations (Exhibit S27)

(3)    My sustained national and international acclaim is indicated by the
fact that the independent citations to my work are from
•    44 journals including the leading internationally circulated
journals such as X, X, X, X, X, etc, (Exhibit S27);
•    researchers from 74 institutions including the world famous (
Exhibit S27):
    UC-Berkeley
    MIT
    Northwestern University
    Los Alamos National Laboratory
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    Naval Research Laboratory
    IBM
    University of Toronto, Canada
    University of Hamburg, Germany
    Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
    Tsinghua University, China
    University of Sydney, Autralia
    Seoul National University, Korea
    Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
•    researchers from 20 countries and regions in the world including
1.    USA
2.    Germany
3.    China
4.    Korea
5.    UK
6.    Brazil
7.    India
8.    Turkey
9.    Australia
10.    Netherlands
11.    Sweden
12.    Canada
13.    Poland
14.    Hong Kong
15.    Singapore
16.    Cyprus
17.    Denmark
18.    Italy
19.    New Zealand
20.    Taiwain
•    top scientists, for example, Professor X (a member of the
National Academy of Sciences, 6 times), Professor X at X (the X Professor,
18 times), Professor X at X (17 times) (Exhibit S27).

(4)    My influence to the field and my recognition by the field are also
demonstrated in other ways than journal publications, for example,
•    A number of researchers in the field had sought my advice and
expertise on their own work (Exhibit S24);
•    I have been invited to write 3 review chapters (Exhibits 33-35,
previously submitted) for the book titled X by the X (an international
publisher) due to the recognition of my being an internationally recognized
expert actively working in the fields of X (Exhibit 36, previously submitted
);
•    I have been invited to present my work (Exhibit 37, previously
submitted) at the 200X National Meeting of the X, the world's leading
organization for X, with nearly X members from over 90 countries (Exhibit
116, previously submitted);
•    I have been frequently called up to serve as a reviewer for a
number of prestigious peer-reviewed journals in a variety of fields
including chemistry, materials science and engineering, physics, and
nanoscience & nanotechnology (Exhibits 71-83, previously submitted, and
Exhibits S1 & S4) due to the recognition of my distinguished publication
records and my internationally-recognized original contributions to the
field (Exhibit S6).

IO:  How have the beneficiary’s talks and conference presentations
influenced the field?

My response:  I would like to provide two specific examples to demonstrate
the influence of my talks and conference presentations on the field.

(a)    My presentation in the x meeting in x, 200x has benefited the
research of Professor X, Director of X, Israel.  He confirmed in his witness
letter that (Exhibit 4, previously submitted):

“We talked extensively about his presentation on X.  This was really an
outstanding work!  In fact, his work has led me to use some of his
groundbreaking findings toX.”

He published such work in X (Exhibit S28).

(b)    Professor X at X asked for my help with the analysis of his results
after my talk at the X Conference in 2005 at X where I discussed an
analytical tool for X.  He employed my methods and acknowledged my help in
one of his papers published in X (Exhibit 74, previously submitted; Exhibit
S24).


AUTHORSHIP:

这是最容易的一部分,这里讲的每一要点都已经在Original submission 里阐述清清楚
楚的,而且是作为第一个标准来阐述的. The citation summary (I just printed and
submitted the summary table) was provided by Scopus. 不知是IO没看懂还是根本
就没看,要求提供complete set of citation lists. 没办法,从Scopus把每篇文章的所
有的citing文章(作者,杂志名称,年,volume,页码, Affiliation including country
origins)都copy (text only)到word file, 形成一个按号码排序的长长的清晰的
complete set of citation
lists. Scopus没有涵盖的引用(可查Scifinder, ISI, and Google Scholar)也可以补
进来. Self and coauthor citations可以highlight出来. 牛人cites也可以highlight
出来. 每一篇自己的文章都可以提供一个sub-summary (i.e., Total citations: 25;
Independent citations: 20).  这样做是花了不少时间,但是提供的list清晰,easy to
follow, 阐述起来也容易. 当然,Scopus, or Scifinder, ISI, and Google Scholar
搜索的结果要附在list后作为原始证据.

IO:  (f) Submit evidence of any scholarly articles you have written in this
field that have been published in professional or major trade publications
or other major media.

My response:  Thank you so much for requesting further evidence about my
authorship of scholarly articles, which is the third criterion that I
claimed in my petition to support my eligibility for Alien of Extraordinary
Ability.

A full list of my 22 peer-reviewed papers, 3 invited book chapters, and 16
conference abstracts is submitted as Exhibit S29.  Their copies can be found
in previously submitted Exhibits 11-32 for the peer-reviewed papers,
Exhibits 33-35 for the invited book chapters, and Exhibits 37-52 for the
conference abstracts.

IO:  Do any of the beneficiary’s scholarly articles have citations from
independent sources in the beneficiary’s field of endeavor?

My response:  YES.  A complete set of citation lists including citations
from independent sources are submitted in Exhibit S30 for each of my 16 peer
-reviewed papers published on the internationally-circulated scientific
journals (the citations for the rest 6 papers written in Chinese and
published in Chinese journals that are circulated most in China are not
listed or counted).

IO:  Who has cited the beneficiary’s articles?

My response:  A summary of the independent sources that have cited the
aforementioned 16 papers is submitted in Exhibit S31.  Some highlights in
Exhibit S31 include:
•    My papers were cited by researchers from 96 institutions
including the world famous:
    UC-Berkeley
    MIT
    Northwestern University
    Los Alamos National Laboratory
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    Naval Research Laboratory
    IBM
    University of Toronto, Canada
    University of Hamburg, Germany
    Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
    Tsinghua University, China
    University of Sydney, Autralia
    Seoul National University, Korea
    Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
•    My papers were cited by researchers from 28 countries and regions
including:
1.    USA
2.    Germany
3.    China
4.    Korea
5.    UK
6.    Brazil
7.    India
8.    Turkey
9.    Australia
10.    Netherlands
11.    Sweden
12.    Canada
13.    Poland
14.    Hong Kong
15.    Singapore
16.    Cyprus
17.    Denmark
18.    Italy
19.    New Zealand
20.    Taiwain
21.    France
22.    Thailand
23.    Spain
24.    Belgium
25.    Serbia
26.    Israel
27.    Mexico
28.    Japan
•    My papers have been heavily cited by world-leading scientists
such as Professor X (6 times) at X, a member of the National Academy of
Sciences, and Professor X (18 times), the X Professor at X (Exhibit S27);
•    The papers which have cited my work were published on over 64
peer-reviewed journals including leading international journals such as X, X
, X,X, etc.

IO:  Are any of these citations self-citations?

My response:  YES.  Among the 262 total citations as listed in Exhibit S30,
there are 208 independent citations (191 at my initial petition), and 53
self or coauthor citations (which accounts for 20% of the total citations).

IO:  Please send a complete set of citation lists pertaining to the
beneficiary’s articles. The evidence has established 31 citations but the
beneficiary claims 191 (马上晕倒了. 191 independent citations 在Original
submission里强调了不少遍, 而且证据相当清楚. 我至今为止也不知道31从何而来.).

My response:  A complete set of citation lists pertaining to my 16 articles
published on the internationally-circulated scientific journals is submitted
in Exhibit S30.  Thank you so much for your great suggestion of providing
this complete citation list that is definitely the best way to present how
my articles have been cited!  I truly appreciated that you gave me the
opportunity to clarify it!

至此,Authorship答复就算结束了. 但RFE还没完. IO接着torture:

IO: (3)    Please describe in detail how you stand apart from other
individuals in your field to the extent that you are within that small
percentage who have risen to the very top of your field? Please response in
detail.

My response:  Evidence for this that I would like to provide is the
comparison of my publications in the most recent 4 years (June 2006-April
2010) and total citations received for these publications with those of
faculty members at the top US universities that were reported in a book
titled “Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States-Continuity and
Change” edited by National Research Council and published by National
Academy Press (which belongs to the National Academy of Sciences) in 1995 (
Exhibit S32).

This book provides the average number of publications (Pub) and citations (
Cite) per faculty member (Fac) between 1988 and 1992.  In the top quarter
universities, the average number of publications per xxx faculty member (Pub
/Fac) is 16.63 and the average number of citations per faculty member (Cite/
Fac) is 118.17.  In comparison, I have 20 publications (Papers #1-12, Book
chapters # 1-3, and Conference Abstracts # 2, 3, 11, 13, and 14 in Exhibit
S29) in the last 4 years that have received 227 citations, so I, as a
postdoctoral researcher at my current career stage, am already comparable to
the faculty members in the top quarter universities.  Notably, if solely
comparing the citations, I (with 227 citations) am placed right behind the
faculty members from Harvard University (ranking at #1) and superior to the
faculty members from the other universities.  If this comparison is fair and
valid, it would certainly place me within that small percentage who have
risen to the very top of my field.

Considering the fact #I that the above numbers were from contributions of on
average 6 Ph.D. students (plus uncounted postdoctoral researchers) per
faculty member (mean Tot Fac/mean Tot Stu = 180.46/33.05 = 6) in these top
quarter universities, my record is actually compared with that from per
research team instead of one individual.  For a fair comparison, those
numbers should be divided by a factor of, for example, 6, but I would rather
use the factor of 2 in considering that one being within that small
percentage who have risen to the very top would place those junior
researchers even in the top quarter universities well below him.

In addition, considering the fact #II that the data provided in the book are
from more than 15 years ago, it is possible that the average number of the
publications and citations per faculty member nowadays may increase to a
substantial degree (a reasonable assumption is to double those numbers, i.e.
, increase by a factor of 2).

The facts #I and #II counteract each other so that the aforementioned
comparisons of my record with those of chemistry faculty from the top
quarter universities should be reasonable, fair, and valid.  In virtue of
this observation, I indeed stand apart from other individuals in my field to
the extent that I am within that small percentage who have risen to the
very top of the field.



--

※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 68.95.]

[上篇] [下篇] [同主题上篇] [同主题下篇]
[转寄] [转贴] [回信给作者] [修改文章] [删除文章] [同主题阅读] [从此处展开] [返回版面] [快速返回] [收藏] [举报]
 
回复文章
标题:
内 容:

未名交友
将您的链接放在这儿

友情链接


 

Site Map - Contact Us - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

版权所有,未名空间(mitbbs.com),since 1996