当前在线人数9411
移民专栏首页 -> 落地生根 -> 文章
殊途同归:迟来的新年礼物 EB1A (DIY) NSC REF by EX0011回复
作者:thegreatzha   来源版面:落地生根   发文时间: 2017年05月04日 02:17:48
之前的情况都在以前的帖子上了:http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/33847967.html
2017年的大年三十的早上收到了RFE的email,没有收到一直惦记的新年礼物,郁郁的度
过了2017年的春节。

后来想通了,虽然身处无奈的NSC, 但是要珍惜这次不被0214 RFE的机会,而且虽然
0011的信说的很苛刻,还提到了不到1k的引用。 我还是不甘心,准备跟ex0011死磕一
下。一直是DIY,看了一些模板,感觉材料自己也能写。就这样白天上班,晚上加班弄
RFE度过了三个月。

RFE的情况是引用从190变成了244,又有3篇文章发表,7次审稿。

Timeline: RD 04/21/2017
Approve 05/02/2017,一共煎熬的等了11天。
说些自己的心得吧:
1)我认真读了EX0011的信,感觉还是我第一次提交的时候只看中了“量”,但0011更
看重的是“质”。
例如:
我第一次提交时候是这样论述亮点的:
My work has been heavily discussed and used as the basis of important
projects at the EPA which have heavily cited (20 times) my work in 8 of
their important publications. Fox example, Dr. XXX, Branch Chief of EPA’s
National Exposure Research Laboratory used my work to highlight the
necessity of XXXX[Exhibit B1.2, Page 132-168]. My work was cited in the
conclusion section of Dr. XXX’s paper which was published in XXX(2013) (Top
#1 scientific journal in XXXX by Google Scholar).
大家看到了,我第一次提交时是想用量来取胜,联邦政府机构20次引用我的成果,这是
多么大的亮点了。然而后面只简单举例说了一下自己的成果应用。
后来在IO的心里说:“The letters or citing articles do not credit you with a
contribution of major significance and your work is generally cited among
those of other research groups' findings. To evidence does not indicate that
your work bas served to advance environmental science to a degree
demonstrating major significance in a field comprised of other researchers
with similar or greater citation rates. ”我就突然明白了,原来IO更不不看重这
些数字,而且是看到我的成果到底起了那些关键或者重要的作用。
所以在回复RFE的时候我的论述就变成了这样:
 [USA] Dr. XXX, senior Research Physical Scientist at U.S. EPA,
directly adopted on my work in his XXX to evaluate the XXX. [Exhibit I-B6,
Page 106-113]
 He firstly used my work to highlight the disadvantages of
previous modelling approaches and emphasize the necessity of his research by
stating “摘抄引我文章的引文”
 Then, he took my findings to support his modeling method of
reducing high biases in the results: “摘抄引我文章的引文”
 His model settings also directly followed my finding and
recommendation to reduce overestimation of nitrate in his modeling output.as
“摘抄引我文章的引文”
 In the “conclusion” section, my findings were used as solid
explanation for his discovery that “摘抄引我文章的引文.”
 Totally, my work has been heavily discussed and used as the
basis of important projects at the EPA which have heavily cited (20 times)
my work in 8 of their important publications.
大家应该看明白了吧? 我挑了一篇引用我次数最多的文章,详细的做了阐述。这样的论
述该绝更具体,更详细了!数字这些东西,我只在最后提了一下,锦上添花了。

整个RFE的论述,我就按照这个模式,把我第一次论述过的12例子又重新论述了一遍,
另外我有提供了三个新例子,没有过多的提交新例子,是因为第一次提交的那些例子都
是我认真挑选过的,都是我觉得最有亮点的。
2)大家普遍关心如何回复IO提到的1K的引用,我是这样做的:
大标题是My articles have received citations of top rate far beyond peer
scientists
然后分成两个小点来支持, 全是应用了ESI 2016的数据:
a) 我的年引用率是我这个领域里的好几倍,并做了一个bar图(见附件):
my citation rate is far superior (1.2~6.5 fold) to the average citation rate
in the field of xxx reported in the latest Thomson Reuters Essential
Science Indicators
b)我有若干篇文章的单篇引用率在1%和1%-10%以内:
 My paper titled “XXX” in 2012 has received 80 citations, which
ranked it well above top 1% most cited papers in the category of XXX for
that year.
 My paper titled “XXX” in 2014 has received 21 citations, which
ranked it between top 1% and 10% most cited papers in the category of XXX
for that year

3)补交了3封独立引用推荐信,都来自美国,没有院士级别的,但是都或多或少的认识
,没有聊过的都拒绝了我:(。另外提一下推荐人的引用也都过1k了。

4) 我自己打包材料的经验贴在这里:https://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/
Immigration/33878153.html

5)罗里罗嗦的说了这么多,有不足之处请大家指正,最后想说一下自己的感受:
收到approve notice的那一刻,就想到一句话:“认真准备,殊途同归“。

在这个论坛里,我认识了3个差不多同一时间被0011 NOID 或者RFE的。我们四个人走了
3条不同的道,但都到了目的地:

太守noid回复后被拒了,但是他们州转到了TSC, 二进宫顺利通过了

RW, RFE后撤了,二进宫顺利通过

我和doudou,回复了RFE, duoduo的case等到第14天,才批准。他后来给我发消息说,
最后几天的感觉很不好,但是最终还是挺过来了。我在approve前,也一直在安慰自己
,不行就再来一次。


讲我们四个的故事,就是想跟大家说,每个人的道路都不一样,或平坦或曲折,但是只
要你心存希望并为之努力,你就会离成功更近些。就好比我吧,因为各种的原因,已经
3年多没有回国了,对家人和朋友的思念不时会跳出来折磨我。能够早点回去看望他们
,是我奋斗绿卡最大的一个动力。

码了这么多字,仅以此来表达对所有帮助过我的兄弟姐妹的感谢(我就不一一提ID了)
。你们对我无私的帮助,我无以回报,只好自己的经验跟大家分享出来,以期继续向你
们学习,发扬你们的精神。也求一个自己485能顺利。

祝大家顺利,都早绿!


===================================================================
很多人都问,这个图是怎么做出来的,我贴一个详细的计算方法在下面:图片请看32楼
这个表我放在了EX里,没有放在PL里:
我自己的数据来自google scholar, 领域的平均领用数据来自2016_
BaselineCitationRates
貌似现在2017最新的数据已经出来了: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/33882291.html


我把2016 citation baslined的数据分享在这里了:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B7cwAuAyajgYZ2UyM3RlVVk3b0E?usp=
sharing




此主题相关图片如下:

[快速返回]
以下是最近 20 条留言:
赞助链接
www.dguolaw.com
浙江大学
www.dealmoon.com/mit160banner
未名交友
将您的链接放在这儿
Site Map - Contact Us - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy
版权所有 - 未名空间(mitbbs.com)- since 1996