AAO agreed the Petitioner met this criterion through articles published in China Television and Contemporary TV with documentation that they are professional publications.
为什么值得参考
了解 AAO 如何判断作品是否属于学术论文，以及它在整体记录中说明什么。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO agreed the Petitioner met this criterion through articles published in China Television and Contemporary TV with documentation that they are professional publications.
Because three criteria were already satisfied, AAO declined to reach this criterion at step 1 and instead addressed the evidence in the final merits determination.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
Because three criteria were already satisfied, AAO declined to reach this criterion at step 1 and instead addressed the evidence in the final merits determination.
The Petitioner failed to specifically identify her proposed endeavor, instead broadly claiming to continue research in unidentified methods for unspecified products. Her evidence—a website screenshot about mechanical engineering broadly and advisory letters about past work—did not establish the merit or national importance of a specific future endeavor.…
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The Petitioner failed to specifically identify her proposed endeavor, instead broadly claiming to continue research in unidentified methods for unspecified products. Her evidence—a website screenshot about mechanical engineering broadly and advisory letters about past work—did not establish the merit or national importance of a specific future endeavor. Her past research and its impacts relate to the second prong, not the first, and she did not demonstrate the nexus between her prospective work and the claimed impacts on aviation or underwater drones.
AAO concluded that publication in highly ranked journals does not by itself establish major significance, that comparative citation rankings do not automatically demonstrate majorly significant contributions, that aggregate citation figures reflect publication record rather than significance, that the cited articles do not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work as authoritative, that documentation of his co-founded…
为什么值得参考
区分“工作具有原创性”与“原创贡献对整个领域具有重大意义”的证明。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO concluded that publication in highly ranked journals does not by itself establish major significance, that comparative citation rankings do not automatically demonstrate majorly significant contributions, that aggregate citation figures reflect publication record rather than significance, that the cited articles do not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work as authoritative, that documentation of his co-founded company did not show original contributions of major significance, and that the testimonial letters were conclusory and speculative about future impact.