Interesting RFE

C

cpgiri

Registered Users (C)
I had submitted documents showing I was a reviewer of many journal articles and NASA proposals, the RFE says...

"A reviewer reviews submissions, evaluates the article, and sumbits such evaluation. The reviewer does not make any final decision on whether the paper is published or not. As such, the pettioner failed to meet this criterion".

Is this a usual RFE? I thought reviewing is enough. How do I respond this? Please suggest.

EB1
RD 12/19/02
RFE 4/26/03
 
Two criterias:
1. Evidence of original scientific, scholarly...
2. Evidence of authorship of scholarly articles

I have a new evidence i.e. Senior Member of IEEE, which I received recently, which will be

3. documentatation of membership in associations...

I had included review of papers under: Evidence of participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others...
 
I would get a journal editor to write a letter
opn how important it is to review papers and that
it has direct influence on the decision. Quote this in your RFE and you should be ok.

cncoold
 
As a member of editorial board of several journals, I know first hand the importance of the peer review process. You should get letters from editors of journals that you have reviewed articles for to answer the RFE.

It appears that this type of RFE is setting a new trend from BCIS. (Association of Immigration Lawyers) AILA appears to have brought this issue before the BCIS. BCIS indicated that reviewing articles for scholarly journal will continue to satisfy the criteria. Please see www.murthy.com

'TSC has been issuing a large number of Requests for Evidence (RFEs) in EB1 Extraordinary Ability petitions with respect to the criteria of "judging the work of others." TSC examiners were questioning the applicant's work in acting as a reviewer for scientific journals, if the journals at issue were not the highest ranked journals in the field. AILA pointed out that, under the law, serving as a referee for scholarly, peer reviewed journals meets the "judging the work of others" criteria, even if the journal is not the highest ranked journal.

Senior TSC officials acknowledged that serving as a reviewer for a recognized journal is an acceptable form of evidence in an Extraordinary Ability case. They also confirmed that publication of articles in any ranked scientific or academic journal would fit within the types of publications required as proof in EB1 and O-1 cases. It is not necessary that the journal be the highest ranked in the field. Of course, the ranking of journals which contain publication/s by the applicant will be weighed with all other supporting evidence in determining whether to approve the EB1 case.'
 
In my case, I have reviewed several papers from (1) the best international journal in my field (not in Science or Nature) (2) one of the most prestigeous journal in my field in US (3) Asian journal, and (4) another international journal. Getting letter from the editor is a good idea. Thank you for the suggestion.

How about sitting in a thesis commitee? Does this qualify under this category? I was a member of at least 3 thesis commitees, few years back, when I was associated with a university. Is that enough? Please suggest.
 
topew - please reply

"As a member of editorial board of several journals, I know first hand the importance of the peer review process."


Hi topew,


I am working as a post-doc in genetics and neurosciences.
Keeping in view the GC, I wish to review papers/journals.
However, I do not know how and where to start, who to contact, etc.

Can you please guide me ??


Thanks
GCC
 
Re: topew - please reply

Originally posted by GCChaahiye
[B

I am working as a post-doc in genetics and neurosciences.
Keeping in view the GC, I wish to review papers/journals.
However, I do not know how and where to start, who to contact, etc.

Can you please guide me ??

Thanks
GCC [/B]
Click to expand...

They come to you, you don't go to them.

My PhD supervisor routinely asked his graduate students/postdocs to review articles. This fact was explained in the reference letter he wrote for me. Again, the letters are the key.

The "judgement of the work of others" can encompass many things, such as TA'ing, supervision/training of junior staff, etc...Remember, all positive things count.

Brian
 
Re: Re: topew - please reply

Originally posted by leroythelion
They come to you, you don't go to them.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I approached several editors with such request, explained who I am and why I need it and the answer was mostly "sure thing".
 
Even BCIS seems to be aware of this. I saw a RFE in another forum saying "It is not clear whether the editors from these journals were responding to the petitioiner's request to act as reviewer/referee"

In some organizations (depending on your field), you need to register to their database to review their proposals. Hope, this helps.
 
Re: Re: Re: topew - please reply

Originally posted by lamonte
Not necessarily. I approached several editors with such request, explained who I am and why I need it and the answer was mostly "sure thing".
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. If they know who you are, then you are well on your way to proving what you need to prove for EB-1. I doubt, however, that Science choses their reviewers this way :).

Brian
 
Editors usually rely on reviewers who have published in areas related to the submitted papers. They also tend to give preference to those whose work have been cited in the submitted papers. Brian is, therefore, right in asserting that editors come to you and not the other way round.

More importantly, BCIS wants to know if the letter asking for a paper to be reviewed was addressed specifically to the petitioner, which will tend to suggest that you are recognised in the field in your own right. Generic letters simply indicating 'dear colleague' or addressed to someone else (eg. your supervising professor), but eventually passed on to you carry little wait.

The key is to demonstrate that you have been invited to judge the work of others through peer review because your own work is recognised in the field.

Recently, AAO decisions have also emphasised that all professors judge the work of their students and that alone does not demonstrate international recognition.
 
Originally posted by topew

Recently, AAO decisions have also emphasised that all professors judge the work of their students and that alone does not demonstrate international recognition.
Click to expand...


Would "judgement of the work of others" be evidence of international recognition? I don't think it would have to be. It might (partly) show that you are a cut above everybody else. A chemistry professor (for example) should not be compared to other professors, but rather to *all* chemists regardless of degree or position.

Brian
 
Brian

I was trying to shed more light on Thesis Committee and the following statement.

The "judgement of the work of others" can encompass many things, such as TA'ing, supervision/training of junior staff, etc...Remember, all positive things count.

All positive things definitely count. But I have found that recent AAO decisions are very important in setting trends in the interpretation of what counts towards fulfilling the criteria.

In this regard a professor of chemistry is expected to supervise students of chemistry as an intrinsic part of his professorial duties. Therefore serving on a thesis committee or supervising junior staff is not sufficient in meeting this criteria.

You may also have noticed that citations used to be counted towards meeting the criteria relating to published materials in major media about the petitioner. AAO now emphasised that citations simply demonstrate academic honesty and the reactions of other experts to the petitioner articles. It is therefore counted as part of authorship of scholarly articles and not as materials about the petitioner in major media.

Please visit bcis website and click on administrative decisions if you need more convincing. Indeed I will suggest that each petitioner read those decisions. They are very helpful in interpreting the criteria and will guide petitioners in evaluating how they meet the criteria or in responding to RFEs.
 
Originally posted by topew


Please visit bcis website and click on administrative decisions if you need more convincing. Indeed I will suggest that each petitioner read those decisions. They are very helpful in interpreting the criteria and will guide petitioners in evaluating how they meet the criteria or in responding to RFEs.
Click to expand...

Yes, I just found it. You know, this is really a fascinating page. The large number of appeals dismissed based solely on a procedural omission is a good reason to pursue appeals with an attorney. My favorite has to be the Elvis impersonator who not only had the nerve to apply for EB-1 EA in this profession, but who also continued on with the appeal.

Don't get me wrong, topew. I'm not disagreeing with you. With respect to the appeals, it really can be difficult to draw conclusions based on short summaries without having all the details of the case. They may have been frivolous in the first place. I do see your point about routine duties being made into something more.

Brian
 
I am enjoying discussions in this forum. Thank you guys.

I have applied for EB1-EA (ND 2/13), self petition. After I applied, I was awarded by a best paper award. What should I do now? Should I wait for the RFE and submit this evidence? My biggest concen is will this evidence be accepted by INS? Mainly because, this was awarded after the submission of I-140? Please help!

Bambhole
 
It will not be considered towards this petition as you obtained it after submitting the petition. Again see AAO decisions. BCIS has consistently cited a precedent case "Matter of Katigbak" in which the service held that "beneficiaries-seeking employment based immigrant classification must possess the necessary qualifications as of the filing date of the visa petition."

But your paper award may show that you can sustain national or international acclaim. Your best bet may be to introduce it, if and when there is an RFE. More importantly, you will need to prove at that point the significance of the award.
 
Brian,

Thanks. I have found your comments on this forum very helpful and instructive. Appeals are difficult mountains to climb. For the posted appeals on EB1-EA for 2003, not a single petitioner was able to overcome BCIS decisions.

The AAO decisions actually are not simply summaries. They are very consistent with established principles in all the cases. They provide a useful guide as to what they are looking for under each criterion. They can help intending petitioners to avoid pitifalls.

It was from these AAO decisions that I descover that many awards--scholarships, grants, post doctoral fellowships-- are irrelevant because only students or future researchers compete for them. Membership requires outstanding achievements. For example, you almost have to be elected a fellow of your professional association to use this criteria--not just an associate or senior member of say IEEE. Citations do not count for published materials about petitioner in major media. On the other hand, authorship of published articles without citations are useless. Conference papers do not count towards artisitc exhibitions. They are more akin to published materials. Simply reviewing papers is not enough to meet judging the work of others. You must have been specifically requested by the journal to do so and not passed down by your professor.

Patents are original, but not necessarily significant contributions. Letters are not necessary by law or BCIS regulations. Although they can provide useful comments on original scholarly contributions of major significance, but they can not substitute for well written petition statement and other existing documentary evidences. The latter may be sufficient in strong cases, but letters can be useful in marginal cases. In these cases, "they can be the difference between approval and rejection" as you, once, rightly noted. Etc, etc, etc.

Please try and visit www.twmlaw.com for an excellent summary of AAO decisions. It has two articles on EB1: "The AAO makes Extraordinary Ability Extraordinarily Hard to Prove" and one on Outstanding Professors and Researchers. Please see also www.immigrationassociates.com on the use and misuse of letters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top