membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
裁决如何说明
AAO declined to reach whether criterion (ii) was satisfied because three other criteria were already established, making a decision on this criterion unnecessary.
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 declined to reach whether criterion (ii) was satisfied because three other criteria were already established, making a decision on this criterion unnecessary.
The AAO found that citation rates relative to other researchers did not establish widespread field impact, that publication in high-impact journals does not demonstrate that the field considers the work majorly significant, that being cited alongside other researchers without distinction does not show major significance, that advisory letters confirmed originality but not widespread impact, and that while two letters showed…
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 +
The AAO found that citation rates relative to other researchers did not establish widespread field impact, that publication in high-impact journals does not demonstrate that the field considers the work majorly significant, that being cited alongside other researchers without distinction does not show major significance, that advisory letters confirmed originality but not widespread impact, and that while two letters showed specific reliance by other researchers, they did not demonstrate widespread impact on the overall field.
AAO explicitly declined to reach a final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet at least three evidentiary criteria, but noted in dicta that the record does not establish 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 reach a final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet at least three evidentiary criteria, but noted in dicta that the record does not establish the required acclaim.
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner satisfies the judging criterion based on her peer review and conference/fellowship evaluation activities.
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 the Petitioner satisfies the judging criterion based on her peer review and conference/fellowship evaluation activities.
AAO found that the Petitioner's employment agreement and CEO letter established her leading role, and that the company's selection as a 2017 award recipient and acceptance as a company-in-residence at a top-tier device incubator established its distinguished reputation.
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 Petitioner's employment agreement and CEO letter established her leading role, and that the company's selection as a 2017 award recipient and acceptance as a company-in-residence at a top-tier device incubator established its distinguished reputation.
AAO determined the Petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim. Her judging roles lacked evidence of wide recognition; her citations declined sharply after 2013 relative to top scientists; her leading role correspondence focused on future potential; her awards lacked evidence of wide field recognition; her original contributions had not yet been widely implemented; and grants, fellowships, and memb…
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 determined the Petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim. Her judging roles lacked evidence of wide recognition; her citations declined sharply after 2013 relative to top scientists; her leading role correspondence focused on future potential; her awards lacked evidence of wide field recognition; her original contributions had not yet been widely implemented; and grants, fellowships, and memberships lacked evidence of field-wide recognition.