AAO explicitly declined to conduct a final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the step-one threshold of three criteria. AAO nonetheless offered advisory observations that the record does not support the required acclaim.
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 +
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the step-one threshold of three criteria. AAO nonetheless offered advisory observations that the record does not support the required acclaim.
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
证据为何得到认可
AAO found that the awarding organization is the national neuroscience society representing the country in the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, making the Early Career Investigator Award nationally recognized in the field. AAO declined to consider new reference letters submitted for the first time on appeal.
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 +
AAO found that the awarding organization is the national neuroscience society representing the country in the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, making the Early Career Investigator Award nationally recognized in the field. AAO declined to consider new reference letters submitted for the first time on appeal.
AAO agreed with the Director that letters from editors of The European Journal of Neuroscience, Journal of Neural Regenerative Research, and Frontiers verified the Petitioner's peer review service, satisfying this criterion.
为什么值得参考
了解评审邀请、已完成任务及评审性质如何被记录和衡量。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO agreed with the Director that letters from editors of The European Journal of Neuroscience, Journal of Neural Regenerative Research, and Frontiers verified the Petitioner's peer review service, satisfying this criterion.
final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim at top of field
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the Petitioner's citation-rate comparisons methodologically unsound (comparing his impact factor to journal impact factors, not to individual researchers), and noted that a paper in Scientometrics warned against extending journal impact factor comparisons to individual authors. While reference letters showed original and useful contributions, they did not establish top-field standing.…
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 +
AAO found the Petitioner's citation-rate comparisons methodologically unsound (comparing his impact factor to journal impact factors, not to individual researchers), and noted that a paper in Scientometrics warned against extending journal impact factor comparisons to individual authors. While reference letters showed original and useful contributions, they did not establish top-field standing. Recent work lacked demonstrated acclaim, the national award excluded more experienced researchers, and peer review service only confirmed expertise rather than top-field standing.