supporting materials

Z

zhaohui

Registered Users (C)
Could someone give me adive about whether I should include these items as supporting materials:

1. Grant approval. I am not the Principle Investigator of the grant, but this is a huge one (20 million).
2. Grant approval from Chinese National Scientific Foundation. I was the the PI.
3. Emails requesting the program I developed and published in one of my papers.
4 Emails requesting collaboration with me because of one of my papers.
5. Public databases that are widely used by researchers. I am co-developer and one of the major contributors.
6. Evidence that I helped my advisor review a manuscript

I have several papers, but only a fourth authored paper was cited (51 times). So I am trying to include more proofs to show the impact of my work. I wonder if it will help, not help, or even hurt me to include the above materials.

Thanks a lot.
 
My 2 cents:
1. OK. as long as you name appears in the proposal
2. No. Because it's not national scope (for NIW)
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes
For the citation, it should be a big factor, you need to mention it anyway.
 
zhaohui said:
Could someone give me adive about whether I should include these items as supporting materials:

1. Grant approval. I am not the Principle Investigator of the grant, but this is a huge one (20 million).
2. Grant approval from Chinese National Scientific Foundation. I was the the PI.
3. Emails requesting the program I developed and published in one of my papers.
4 Emails requesting collaboration with me because of one of my papers.
5. Public databases that are widely used by researchers. I am co-developer and one of the major contributors.
6. Evidence that I helped my advisor review a manuscript

I have several papers, but only a fourth authored paper was cited (51 times). So I am trying to include more proofs to show the impact of my work. I wonder if it will help, not help, or even hurt me to include the above materials.

Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

1. Make sure you include a page where you listed as a KEY PERSONNEL for this project.
2. Fine by me. I also included my grants obtained in my home country. It was successful.
3. Good.
4. Good.
5. Good, but make sure you have documents supporting your claim that you were co-developer and one of the major contributors.
6. This one I do not know. On the one hand, you did this job, but on the other hand it was not a journal editor who selected you as a reviewer, but rather your advisor. This may mean that you are not good enough to receive such an offer from an editor. If I am at your place, I would rather omit this evidence, especially if you did not do any other reviews by yourself.

The best of luck!
 
zhaohui said:
Could someone give me adive about whether I should include these items as supporting materials:

1. Grant approval. I am not the Principle Investigator of the grant, but this is a huge one (20 million).
2. Grant approval from Chinese National Scientific Foundation. I was the the PI.
3. Emails requesting the program I developed and published in one of my papers.
4 Emails requesting collaboration with me because of one of my papers.
5. Public databases that are widely used by researchers. I am co-developer and one of the major contributors.
6. Evidence that I helped my advisor review a manuscript

I have several papers, but only a fourth authored paper was cited (51 times). So I am trying to include more proofs to show the impact of my work. I wonder if it will help, not help, or even hurt me to include the above materials.

Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

And your paper with a high number of citations is a very good evidence.
I would also collect a couple of letters from your collaborators/co-authors stating which part of the study you did and that your part of this project/paper was really crucial.
 
Present the evidence clearly and cleanly

Make sure you give an introduction about the nature of the e-mails you've received, what they were for, what their relevance is to the high quality of your work. Include a list of the scientists (and their affiliations) that have written e-mails to you regarding your work. Then, attach the e-mails themselves as some sort of an appendix.

Your job is to assist the adjudicator in comprehending (without much effort) the high quality and extreme importance of your work.

Also, if you have quite a few people using your programs and databases, do you think you can ask some of them to write letters stating the importance of these objects to their own work? These letters don't have to be as long or as detailed as your reference letters, but they can be specific proof that particular aspects of your work are being used by scientists (all over the world).

You can "shock and awe" the adjudicator with all these evidence material, but BE SURE TO ORGANIZE WELL AND EXPLAIN EXPLICITLY WHY THEY SAY YOUR WORK IS SUPER-IMPORTANT.

Good luck ...

(ps. I'm not a lawyer of course; take these with a grain of salt.)
 
zhaohui said:
Could someone give me adive about whether I should include these items as supporting materials:

1. Grant approval. I am not the Principle Investigator of the grant, but this is a huge one (20 million).
2. Grant approval from Chinese National Scientific Foundation. I was the the PI.
3. Emails requesting the program I developed and published in one of my papers.
4 Emails requesting collaboration with me because of one of my papers.
5. Public databases that are widely used by researchers. I am co-developer and one of the major contributors.
6. Evidence that I helped my advisor review a manuscript

I have several papers, but only a fourth authored paper was cited (51 times). So I am trying to include more proofs to show the impact of my work. I wonder if it will help, not help, or even hurt me to include the above materials.

Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

1) Only good with strong letters (from your boss and even better from independent scientists) that you were THE key person of the whole project.

2) OK

3) OK, if you get some background informations about the scientists who requested the program or get letters from them.

4) Ok, but again with strong letters from those scientists would be much more helpful.

5) OK

6) Useless, since you weren't invited personally by the journal

Overall, my own experience is that those points are only helpful if you have more evidences to back you up (letters from those scientists etc). USCIS is not happy with just saying that for example some people wanted to do a collaboration with me, instead they want to have more evidences that those persons choose you because of your scientific accomplishments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top