AAO found the Publons comparisons unreliable due to mismatched fields and self-reported data, found the peer reviews were concentrated in 2017 rather than sustained, found the Google Scholar citations incomplete due to untranslated portions and inconsistent numbers, found the Microsoft Research graph unverifiable, and found the recommendation letters insufficient to establish top-of-field status.
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 Publons comparisons unreliable due to mismatched fields and self-reported data, found the peer reviews were concentrated in 2017 rather than sustained, found the Google Scholar citations incomplete due to untranslated portions and inconsistent numbers, found the Microsoft Research graph unverifiable, and found the recommendation letters insufficient to establish top-of-field status.
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria at step 1, though it informally noted the record does not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
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 conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria at step 1, though it informally noted the record does not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
证据为何得到认可
AAO agreed that the Beneficiary's role as founder and artistic director of an organization receiving competitive city grants established a leading or critical role for an organization with a 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 agreed that the Beneficiary's role as founder and artistic director of an organization receiving competitive city grants established a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation.
The Petitioner did not identify what specific original content or concepts she contributed to the code drafting, did not demonstrate the extent of her role among two dozen other researchers, and the supporting letter was conclusory without explaining how her work significantly impacted the field. Conference participation also did not show major significance.
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 Petitioner did not identify what specific original content or concepts she contributed to the code drafting, did not demonstrate the extent of her role among two dozen other researchers, and the supporting letter was conclusory without explaining how her work significantly impacted the field. Conference participation also did not show major significance.