自己準備的EB1A，今天收到RFE。質疑工作的原創性和重要性。不知道該準備什麽材料，求建議。非常非常感謝！
基本情況：
專業：化學，納米科學
16篇文章:８一作含１綜述,１book chapter b(不是一作), 無CNS,３篇JACS (2一作,１二作)
12個會議摘要
１個中國專利（在國內公司工作時申請的，一作）
遞材料時引用107次（一作文章都是2011, 2012年發的,引用88次），他引82次。 審稿24次，7個期刊
10封推薦信: 博士導師（東部某校），碩士畢業後在國內公司工作時的頭，１個美國院士，４個教授（加州，法國，日本，中國），現在的老板（assistant professor），２個審稿雜誌的編輯
9/9 上午EB1A材料寄到TSC, pp
9/11 TSC從銀行賬戶上劃走申請費與加急費
9/12 clock stopped
9/19收到REF信，1102審的
PL中，引用這部分（包括citation map，近三年的一作文章引用次數和期刊影響因子比較圖，和2007年化學領域１所高校的faculty引用比較, 引用的領域分布。。。）都放在了Authorship部分，現在看來是不恰當的，是不是應該放在contribution部分？
PL 中，contribution部分分成六部分來寫的：第一部分是介紹５個方麵的contribution（含部分審稿人的積極comments）；第二部分是研究如何幫助其他scientist開創新領域的（用了６篇４個國家的他引文章，摘抄了引文的段落）；第三部分是幾篇文章被綜述討論(最多的一篇一作文章有８篇綜述引用，摘抄了引用的段落)；第四部分是其他scientists用此方法進行合成，用文章作為實驗設計的基礎，用結果解釋分析他們的實驗數據 （７篇６個國家的他引，摘抄了引用的段落）；第五部分，會議，book chapter和review的約稿；第六部分摘抄了博士導師和其他５個獨立推薦人的信。不知道推薦信夠不夠，或者是需要更多international推薦信？
幾篇引用次數較高的文章都是基於一個合成方法的機理研究。因為合成方法都以人名命名的，所以估計這就是Officer質疑contribution是否original的原因。是不是找發表文章的雜誌編輯寫信，說明隻有是original的contribution才會被發表，就okay了？感覺還不是直接證據證明原創性。求牛人指導。
另外，是不是應該把原來PL中Contribution的六個部分按５個contribution items重新組合，也就是，先說一個contribution，談引用、影響、獨立推薦人意見，然後再談下一個contribution？
USCIS信中RFE部分 “the evidence submitted does not show that the beneficiary’s contributions are considered to be of major significance in the field of endeavor. Simply going on record and explaining the beneficiary’s work is not sufficient to establish that the beneficiary’s contributions are of major significance. It is unclear if the beneficiary’s contribution is original or if the beneficiary has built upon others work. Also, it does not appear that the beneficiary’s contribution is being widely implemented by others or that it has been widely cited. To assist in determining whether the beneficiary’s contributions are original and of major significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
- Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the beneficiary’s contribution to the field
- Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider the beneficiary’s work important
- Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the beneficiary’s contributions of major significance
- Evidence that the beneficiary’s major significant contribution(s) has provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited; and
- Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others. Possible evidence may include but not is limited to:]
Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s product
Licensed technology being used by others
Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the field
Note: Letters and testimonies, if submitted, much provide much detail as possible about the beneficiary’s contribution and must explain, in detail, how the contribution was “original” and how the contribution were of “major” signicance.”
希望大家多給些意見和建議，非常非常非常感謝
