EB1A RFE, help

"such as evidence that she has reviewed an unusually large number of articles"
To be honest this is not a really fair RFE asking someone to show. What does it mean "unusually large number of articles" Does he/she full time job to review articles.. I have been near to a nobel Laureates lab, HE does not receive "unusually large number of articles"
 
Hi

Don't worry, if you answer for all REF'S, they will approve.

If you contact SigamXi, they will give letter for immigration purpose and in this they will mention about the selection guidelines and how you have selected everything. If you include this letter inaddition to the regular letter sent by SigmaXi, it fulfils one of your criteria. When you ask this letter for SigmaXi, they will give more details about their selection ruels etc. You can include all of this to your exhibits.

Coming to the letters, you need to collect another two or three strong letters emphasizing how your work is important to the others working in your field and how it have impact on society.

You need to include your conferences and other presentations. While including this information, try to include the conference broachure also to show the significance of the conference.

Good luck.
 
Skvadivel,
It is hard to claim by reviewing only one paper. However, try your luck by providing letter from the editor saying you are an internationally recognized expert in reviewing such papers etc. Did you submit letter from the editor before? or submitted only invitation letter?
Alternatively, If you feel awards have better weightage, try to claim those insted of judging other work. This should be again providing evidence that only few peers receives these awards.
BTW, can you please post your credentials and RFEs in order to get better suggestions from others.
Good luck.
 
Thanks, ChrisV and goviks.

I thought the criterion "judge of work of others" was my strongest. Look at the RFE, this is the only on they the adjudicator didn't put down bold face letters requesting for further evidence. Instead, he put down "you may submit...".

You are right, and as the adjudicator suggested in the RFE, I should get "comparative evidence" to "set apart from others in the field". As a new faculty in mathematics, (reviewing) 6 papers for peer-reviewed journals is well above the average. Four distinguish journals (request for review) is unusual for a new math faculty. Although, it seems that the participation in peer reviews is occasional, as a new faculty and young researcher, such frequency of review requests is unusually high (6 within two and half years). In addition, letters from editors confirm that I am a regular reviewer. (I provided one such letter, and I will provide one more from another journal). Recently I received a new review request, this is the second time from that journal. However, I heard that the evidences dated after I-140 are not counted. I even had 8 more citations since the submission of I-140, and my total citation number becomes 47. But they don't count, sigh...

Being chosen to co-organize international conferences and chair a special session sets me apart from other peers with the same training and background. In particular, I played a critical role on one international conference.

My concern (also the adjudicator's, I hope I am right) is more on the original contribution and the authorship. The phrases like "has the potential to become" and "holds great promise to become" really gave bad impression. I hope to clear out the bad impression by providing more letters attesting that I am well established and has risen to the top of the field.
 
Thanks, btatineni, for the valuable tip on Sigma Xi. I quoted (from online description, another thing I did badly) "noteworthy achievement as an original investigator". The adjudicator argued that "noteworthy" is not enough, is less than "outstanding". To be honest, I really wasn't careful enough to notice that difference.

Yes, skvadivel, please post your credentials and the RFE. I found the discussion very informative and educative. I learned a lot from this forum, especially when people discuss a specific case.

A minor thing, the RFE didn't mention at all about my conference presentations and invited talks (I did provide the conference brochure and the signed invitation letters).

Too bad that my fellowships are not counted. They are prestigious, competed in all sciences nation wide. Yet, he argued "most promising researchers" (again, my quote from online) is not "excellent". Further he argued the award was not given specifically for exceptional contributions in Applied Mathematics (my field). Well, I am really not good at presenting the appropriate presentation for this. But I feel that no matter how I did, the postdoc fellowships don't count. (I read from this forum somewhere). Another sigh...
 
IIp1,
You need 2-3 strong letters from big shots in the field and letters from journals. You will get through. be careful to answer all concenrns.
Good luck
 
llp1,

I think, you should argue in your cover letter that you have been invited to give talks at national or international conferences, that shows your worldwide recognition. Also I believe, reviewing 6 or more papers for different journals is pretty strong at this stage of your career. But you have to state this things clearly in the cover letter to convince the IO. I think, the cover letter has to be very strong but simple. Remember, the officer who is handling your case probably has completely different background and not at all familiar with your field. I had only reviewed 3-4 papers for two journals when I applied. I argued that one of them is the most prestigious journal in our field and it is an american journal. Then I said the other one is a europian journal. this is due to strong publications in both american and international journals. If this is the case for you, it will show that you are internationally recognized, which is very important for EB1A.

Have you written any review article? My case, I also argued that writing an invitational review article in a prestigious journal is basically you are reviewing others work in your field. If you have a review article. You can include that in this section as well.

Also, when you obtained the full membership in Sigma Xi, they must have given you a certificate, where it's stated that becoz of your outstanding contribution, you have been elected as a full member. If you have not gotten that, call them and they will send you one. You can provide that as an evidence. (we all know it's really not that difficult to get the full membership, but you have to sell your case and you have to convince them that it is important. At the end it matters how you present your case.)

Hope this helps.
 
Thanks, eb1a-query. That definitely helps a lot.

Yes, out of four, two journals are American and the other two are Europian.

I am just invited to write a review article and they promise to include me on the editorial board. But that is a Chinese journal, it is prestigious though in China. In fact, they are about to add an English version, and my review paper will be the first one for the grand opening. I feel honored, but not sure how the IO thinks. I could ask the journal editor provides a letter confirming these. Will that help? Or don't mention it at all?

I believe that I did provide a copy of the certificate. But the IO argued that "noteworthy" is not "outstanding". I will try to argue back in my cover letter, and I will try to get a letter from Sigma XI on the selection guides etc.

Thanks.
 
I think "Quantity of journals are not important" it is a quality. If a person is reviewer in Science ,Nature or cell. Does she/he needs to show that they have received large volumes of manuscript..

You should argue, Even Nobel price is NOT given any mathematician..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with skvadivel totally.

llp1, i think, you should definitely include the invitation that you have recived to write the review. It clearly shows your achievement. Get a letter from the editor stating why s/he selected you and that it's an honor to be the 1st one for the grand opening. Absolutely.
 
try here, maybe works for you...

you may also try eb1b based on your appointment..much easier than eb1a these days.
anyway, for your eb1a rfe,try here
www.immitrans.com
they just released some successful eb1 case online
it seems you may contact them and let them prep the doc for you....
you may want email them
info@immitrans.com
llp1 said:
Thanks, ChrisV and goviks. Without you guys help, I don't even have the courage to answer the RFE. In fact, without this forum, I wouldn't have the gut to DIY EB1A.
I did work hard on the petition letter. But I admit that there must be some points that I overlooked. I really didn't think of the average number of publications in mathematics at asst. prof level? For the top journals in my field, how could I claim, by my references letters?

Anyways, here are the evidences I provided for my best 3 bets.

3. judge of work of others

3.1 I detailed my significant role in an international conference: sitting in the organizing committee, inviting panel speakers, reviewing submitted abstracts and conference proceeding papers, co-chairing a special session. I provided certificate letters from the chair of the organizing committee to confirm my role in the committee and co-chairing a session, also provided the invitation for the proceeding review, as well as the importance of the proceeding journal and positive feedback from attendees.

3.2 The review for five journals with six papers, three international conferences with four proceeding papers. I provided the journals and conferences description, the impact factors of the journals, as well as the invitation letters from the (chief editors).

3.3 A member on the editor board of a new journal. I provided the invitation letter from the chief editor. Because it is a new journal, the first issue hasn't been out yet. I couldn't provide further materials.

3.4 Co-chaired a special session, provided the letter from the organizer.

3.5 Co-organized three international conferences, provided the certificates from the chair of the organizing committee, as well as the description of the conferences.

4. Original contribution

4.1 Thirty-nine citations. I provided the print out from ISI Web of Knowledge, in the letter I highlighted the major three papers work and the number of citations. The top one is with 12 citations. I also carefully explained the long citation span in mathematical contributions, which is why my recently published contributions don't have many citations. However, I did provide email requests for those papers.

4.2 Nine senior researchers confirm the significance of my contribution. They are from USA (Duke U, UTPA), Canada (NRC, U of Alberta), Hong Kong (City U), Germany and UK; two are post doc supervisors, one PhD supervisor, one journal editor, one is my current chair in the department, others are independent (they heard my presentations in the conferences, or cited my work). In their letters, they specifically mentioned my contribution in the papers, and that my work helped their research etc. The journal editor (German) confirmed that I am one of the regular reviewers.

5. Authorship: 16 peer-reviewed papers in 8 journals, 12 conference proceedings and one book chapter.

For each journal I described the importance and the impact factor. I also provided a media paper explaining the low impact factor in mathematics journals. Provided the front page (at least) for each of my papers. For the conference proceedings, I highlighted the importance of some conferences, and provided couple of sample proceeding papers.

Lastly, I didn't claim the following as Exhibits of Art.
6. Presentations: 15 or so conference presentations (some are invited), 5 invited talks at three different universities.
I chose couple of conferences to report. For the invited talks/presentations, I provided the letters or emails.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top