RFE for EA1 - How to reply

Q

qkong

New Member
I am here to ask for your suggestions.

The RFE letter says my initial evidences qualify for two criteria out of the seven I was trying. I am going to drop two and argue the other three back. I guess my self petition was not well organized. The questions are:

1). Do I focus on only the criterias that did not get accepted by the INS, or should I send in again the evidences for the ones they have accepted - Like a complete petition?
2). Is it going to negatively affect the officer's opinion of my qualifications when I drop two of my previous claims? Say, I am planing to drop the claim for membership. I presented membership info for APS and SigmaXi, but did not get the credit.

Thanks for your opinion and sharing your experience.

qkong
 
Originally posted by qkong
The RFE letter says my initial evidences qualify for two criteria out of the seven I was trying. I am going to drop two and argue the other three back. I guess my self petition was not well organized.
Click to expand...
What are the two criteria you have been qualified based on your initial evidences? Could you please post your details? Which is your center? Thanks.
 
You do not have to submit evidences on crieterias that you've already qualified. It is better to drop your weakest crieterias and focus on the strong ones. There is nothing wrong with that. Arrange your response in nos.

1. additional evidence/clarifications submitted with this RFE
2. criteria met
3. no further documents submiteed

etc. etc.

Looks like you have a strong case.

Good Luck,
 
Thank you for your kind advice.

Some details: NSC, 10 first authored papers some cited 15 times and highlighted in review papers, but did not get the credit because researchers like me “are supposed to have publications” and need to show the impact. Original contributions and judge of others work accepted. Awarded grant as a result of open competition did not get the credit because it is ‘montery’ and is meant for future research, ‘not an award of previous achievement’. Any similar experiences? Thanks.
 
They are nuts. ALA already fought with them on the publications issues, but they keep sending these ridiculous requests about publications.

Anyway you (and me too) have to show that the publication record is exceptional. Meaning that only few in the field have such a good publication record.

1. First authorship means nothing for them, unless your co-authors by writing recommendation letters can clearly specify your critical role in these publications,
2. Magazines should be elite or top of the field. It should be said that they accept only best research papers,
3. Reviewers that recommended your papers for publications should clearly state that it was an important contribution to the field. If you saved reviewer’s comments send them in.
4. With citations it is more difficult. Usual bullshit is that citations just show that you did not fake your results. It is hard to argue. But following points may strengthen our cases – citations from absolutely independent groups from other countries and citations in review articles.

All this information must be incorporated into the letters from independent experts from your field.

I do not understand why people with 5-6 publications get approved right away, and those who have 10 first author publications get stuck and have to bend their backs.

Good luck.
 
Originally posted by alexk
I do not understand why people with 5-6 publications get approved right away, and those who have 10 first author publications get stuck and have to bend their backs.
Click to expand...

I can not speak for everybody, but in my case the rationale was quite simple - professional help was enlisted. Seriously, number of publication means nothing. There're fields where 10 is normal, and there're fields where 2 is a lot. There're unusually prolific advisors, too. I was recently asked to reivew a paper and the very first literature search revealed 6 or 7 papers by the same group on basically the same stuff, all written within last 3 years. So it's ok to be sceptical.
 
I meant first author publications. For me 8-10 publications of these type would mean at least 7 or more years of hard work.
 
That's exactly what I'm saying! For you 10 papers is 7-8 years of work, for someone it is 2-3 and for someone it's 15-20. Adjudicator has no way of knowing where you stand on this ladder. Being first on the author also does not say much since there're no official guidelines on the matter. I know advisors who always put themselves first, and I know ones who use alphabetical order. Even more complicated are interdisciplinary projects where several people contribute equally. So I say, no, being first author on a paper does not mean much, in the eyes of BCIS unless you submit evidence detailing your contributions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top