Qualify for EB1-EA?

[timk512]

Hello,

Great forum here! I already learned a lot.

Would the following qualifications satisfy the E1-EA requirements? I like to get a second opinion.

1) embership in associations in the field which require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts,

Is ACS (and AAAS) membership enough? I have the ACS welcome letter and a letter from a nominee (when I signed up with ACS during the web a few years back only one nominee was required)

2) published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media,

Printout from Citation Index showing # of citations (157)

3) participation on a panel or individually as a judge of the work of others in the field or an allied field,

That’s a tricky one. Could I sell my Chemical Review publication as having jugded the work of others in the field on a author panel ?

Chem. Rev. state about their journal: “Chemical Reviews provides comprehensive and expert critical analysis in organic, inorganic, physical, analytical, theoretical, and biological chemistry.”

Their guidelines for authors:

“Articles for Chemical Reviews should be compre-hensive, authoritative, critical, and readable reviews of recent research in chemistry.”

I could claim, that I have analyzed the work of others in a prestigious journal with one of the highest impact factors in the field.

Would this work?

4) original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in

- Reference letters describing my contributions and their significance
- Conference presentations (10; 8 ACS Conference presentations)
- Impact factor of journals? Does the INS officer know what an impact factor is and what score is good or bad? Is there any info available which says, for example, > 3 is significant?

5) authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major

- 21 Publications (incl. 6 JACS, 4 Angew. Chem, 4 Organometallics, 3 Chem. Commun.)

6) evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other high remuneration for services,

I don’t have any clue about this one. Do you have to make a million $$$ or would 10 % higher than the median be considered high? Are there any percentage numbers out there?

Thanks a lot for helping me out here! I hope I can give back to the community once I get more experience



Tim

 

[leroythelion]

Originally posted by timk512
Hello,

Great forum here! I already learned a lot.

Would the following qualifications satisfy the E1-EA requirements? I like to get a second opinion.

1) I mentioned my ACS membership and included a copy of the by-laws requiring two nominations. I have no idea whether I had fulfilled this requirement. I did get 3 others, though .

2) 157 citations is good. I got hold of as many of my citations as possible, highlited specifically where my papers were referenced, and included it in my petition.

3) Maybe. Did you ever review papers as a grad student/post doc for your prof (who may have reviewed for journals)? I did this all the time and my prof mentioned this in his letter.

4) Explain impact factor in your petition. Your target audience is a college-educated person who will not know a lot about your field, so you will have to explain everything in layman terms.

5) Looks impressive. Your referees will have to stress the importance of these journals to your field. Since I am a chemist, I know this is a good publication record (I am assuming you're on the younger side).

6) This is category is probably good for pro athletes/musicians, not so good for chemists.

I would say you have a good shot, if everything is put together properly. I'm not sure what you do, but you will have to work in all the aspects of your current position, with all arrows pointing towards your extraordinary ability.

Brian

 

[timk512]

Brian,

thanks for your input.

I'm guessing the same: I'll probably have a good shot at 2) and 5).

I would have to find a good way of explaining 4).

At the same time I'm having a hard time in clearly distinguishing between 4) and 5).

To me, it is almost the same. Aren't scholarly articles basically original scientific, scholarly contributions to the field?

Does this mean, if you have published than you have automatically original scientific contributions?

Thanks.