x****y
发帖数: 58 | 1 大家好,杂志编辑的信还没有要到，想通过逻辑论证 Review Not Routine，望高手给提
提建议，多谢！！！
iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel
, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of
specification for which classification is sought.
The USCIS officer commented that (NOID Letter Page 4):
“The record reflects the beneficiary's peer review of 19 articles in 7
journals, including Chemical communication, Orgnic Letter, Ploymer Chemistry
, etc. However, because peer review is routine in the field and, by itself,
is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international
acclaim, then USCIS cannot conclude that the beneficiary's peer-review of
others' work is consistent with either a "level of expertise indicating the
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of
the field of endeavor" or "sustained national or international acclaim" The
evidence would need to set the beneficiary's apart from others in his field
.”
Response: I appreciate the officer’s effort in reviewing my initial
submitted documents and the suggestion. In the following section, I will
present additional evidence to support that my peer review is indicative of
"level of expertise indicating the individual is one of that small
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" and
consistent with "sustained national or international acclaim".
1) Serving as a peer reviewer for three top 1% journals is indicative of "
level of expertise indicating the individual is one of that small percentage
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor"
By now, I have reviewed 21 papers for 7 prestigious international journals,
including three top 1% journals (Chem.Comm., Org. Lett. and J. Org. Chem.)
among 8281 leading scientific journals (Table 1).
Table 1 List of journals for which I have reviewed manuscripts upon
invitations. The ranking are compared to a total of 8281 leading scientific
journals indexed by Thomson Scientific
Serving as a peer reviewer for three top 1% journals is indicative of my
scholarly achievement is among the top 1%
According to Wikipedia, the largest and most popular general reference work
on the Internet [Exhibit Re-01], Peer Review is defined as “the evaluation
of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the
work (peers) [Exhibit Re-02]. The definition indicates that serving as a
reviewer for a journal is indicative that the reviewer has reached a similar
level achieved by the journal. Therefore, corresponding to the 8281 leading
scientific journals indexed by Thomson Scientific, there are 8281 groups of
peer reviewers, while only the top 1% reviewers are qualified to serve as
peer reviewers for the top 1% journals.
For example, Chem.Comm. as a forum for urgent high quality communications
from across the chemical sciences, hold very strict refereeing standards:“
Communications in ChemComm should be preliminary accounts of original and
significant work in any area of chemistry that is likely to prove of wide
general appeal or exceptional specialist interest...Only a fraction of
research warrants publication in ChemComm and strict refereeing standards
should be applied. Our current rejection rate is around 70 %. Acceptance
should only be recommended if the content is of such urgency or impact that
rapid publication will be advantageous to the progress of chemical research.
” Accordingly, to be a qualified reviewer for Chem.Comm., one should have
the knowledge breadth and depth to make an objective judgment of whether the
manuscript is among the 30% that are likely to prove of wide general appeal
or exceptional specialist interest. It’s not likely to happen that an
editor will invite a scientist, who has never published papers in a journal
as good as Chem.Comm., as a reviewer to make an objective and constructive
judgments for manuscripts submitted to Chem.Comm..
I am qualified as a reviewer for the three top 1% journals (Chem.Comm., Org.
Lett. and J. Org. Chem.) is because of my peer level achievements that I
have published 3 scholarly articles in Chem.Comm., 3 scholarly articles in
Org. Lett. and 2 higher level articles in Angew. Chem. (top 0.1% )
In summary, serving as a peer reviewer for three top 1% journals is
indicative of that my scholarly achievement has reached equal or higher than
these journals.
2). My review record is consistent with my "sustained national or
international acclaim"
..... | d*******n
发帖数: 4778 | 2 If you are stating like:
"According to Wikipedia, the largest and most popular general reference work
on the Internet [Exhibit Re-01].....", it is weak to support you as a top
percentage reviewer in your field.
panel
Chemistry
international
【在 x****y 的大作中提到】
: 大家好,杂志编辑的信还没有要到，想通过逻辑论证 Review Not Routine，望高手给提
: 提建议，多谢！！！
: iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel
: , as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of
: specification for which classification is sought.
: The USCIS officer commented that (NOID Letter Page 4):
: “The record reflects the beneficiary's peer review of 19 articles in 7
: journals, including Chemical communication, Orgnic Letter, Ploymer Chemistry
: , etc. However, because peer review is routine in the field and, by itself,
: is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international
| E*S
发帖数: 715 | | d*******n
发帖数: 4778 | 4 不要有“通过逻辑论证”来说服IO的想法，IO只想看证据。找editor写推荐信，夸你是
top
panel
Chemistry
international
【在 x****y 的大作中提到】
: 大家好,杂志编辑的信还没有要到，想通过逻辑论证 Review Not Routine，望高手给提
: 提建议，多谢！！！
: iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel
: , as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of
: specification for which classification is sought.
: The USCIS officer commented that (NOID Letter Page 4):
: “The record reflects the beneficiary's peer review of 19 articles in 7
: journals, including Chemical communication, Orgnic Letter, Ploymer Chemistry
: , etc. However, because peer review is routine in the field and, by itself,
: is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international
| C****t
发帖数: 86 | 5 最好的办法是找editor，最起码也是AE给你写信。千万别用wikipedia这种大众媒体，
只能减弱你的证据。 | M**1
发帖数: 1219 | 6 I agree using "wikipedia ..." as support is relatively weak.
Try asking editorial office to give you a letter.
Being a Reviewer for a journal is good. Having "Adjudicative" reviewer
experience is extremely strong and not routine at all.
If you have Adjudicative reviewer experienced, state that in the RFE letter | t******1
发帖数: 2239 | | p*****3
发帖数: 1168 | | d**e
发帖数: 314 | | l*******e
发帖数: 273 | 10 Big bless!
panel
Chemistry
international
【在 x****y 的大作中提到】
: 大家好,杂志编辑的信还没有要到，想通过逻辑论证 Review Not Routine，望高手给提
: 提建议，多谢！！！
: iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel
: , as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of
: specification for which classification is sought.
: The USCIS officer commented that (NOID Letter Page 4):
: “The record reflects the beneficiary's peer review of 19 articles in 7
: journals, including Chemical communication, Orgnic Letter, Ploymer Chemistry
: , etc. However, because peer review is routine in the field and, by itself,
: is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international
| x****y
发帖数: 58 | 11 感谢各位，下面是曾收到过的信：
Although I have received three reviews for this manuscript, the comments
make it difficult to make a decision as to whether it is of the level of
science appropriate for XXXX. In view of your expertise I would be very
grateful if you could review the following manuscript which has been
submitted to Journal of XXXX, and provide your opinion of the science and
interest this manuscript would generate should it be published. I have
marked the reviews we have in hand to be accessible so let me know if you
cannot get them.
这个算是 "Adjudicative" 么？ | p*******r
发帖数: 66 | 12 You are better to find an editor to write (better you draft) a reference
letter style supportive letter. | x****l
发帖数: 978 | 13 不要try to argue the logic.直接提供hard evidence, such as journal rank in
the field, and editor letter to prove only top researchers/internationally
recognized experts are invited to review papers for the journal.
panel
Chemistry
international
【在 x****y 的大作中提到】
: 大家好,杂志编辑的信还没有要到，想通过逻辑论证 Review Not Routine，望高手给提
: 提建议，多谢！！！
: iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel
: , as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of
: specification for which classification is sought.
: The USCIS officer commented that (NOID Letter Page 4):
: “The record reflects the beneficiary's peer review of 19 articles in 7
: journals, including Chemical communication, Orgnic Letter, Ploymer Chemistry
: , etc. However, because peer review is routine in the field and, by itself,
: is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international
|
|
