自己准备的EB1A，今天收到RFE。质疑工作的原创性和重要性。不知道该准备什么材料，求建议。非常非常感谢！
基本情况：
专业：化学，纳米科学
16篇文章:８一作含１综述,１book chapter b(不是一作), 无CNS,３篇JACS (2一作,１二作)
12个会议摘要
１个中国专利（在国内公司工作时申请的，一作）
递材料时引用107次（一作文章都是2011, 2012年发的,引用88次），他引82次。 审稿24次，7个期刊
10封推荐信: 博士导师（东部某校），硕士毕业后在国内公司工作时的头，１个美国院士，４个教授（加州，法国，日本，中国），现在的老板（assistant professor），２个审稿杂志的编辑
9/9 上午EB1A材料寄到TSC, pp
9/11 TSC从银行账户上划走申请费与加急费
9/12 clock stopped
9/19收到REF信，1102审的
PL中，引用这部分（包括citation map，近三年的一作文章引用次数和期刊影响因子比较图，和2007年化学领域１所高校的faculty引用比较, 引用的领域分布。。。）都放在了Authorship部分，现在看来是不恰当的，是不是应该放在contribution部分？
PL 中，contribution部分分成六部分来写的：第一部分是介绍５个方面的contribution（含部分审稿人的积极comments）；第二部分是研究如何帮助其他scientist开创新领域的（用了６篇４个国家的他引文章，摘抄了引文的段落）；第三部分是几篇文章被综述讨论(最多的一篇一作文章有８篇综述引用，摘抄了引用的段落)；第四部分是其他scientists用此方法进行合成，用文章作为实验设计的基础，用结果解释分析他们的实验数据 （７篇６个国家的他引，摘抄了引用的段落）；第五部分，会议，book chapter和review的约稿；第六部分摘抄了博士导师和其他５个独立推荐人的信。不知道推荐信够不够，或者是需要更多international推荐信？
几篇引用次数较高的文章都是基于一个合成方法的机理研究。因为合成方法都以人名命名的，所以估计这就是Officer质疑contribution是否original的原因。是不是找发表文章的杂志编辑写信，说明只有是original的contribution才会被发表，就okay了？感觉还不是直接证据证明原创性。求牛人指导。
另外，是不是应该把原来PL中Contribution的六个部分按５个contribution items重新组合，也就是，先说一个contribution，谈引用、影响、独立推荐人意见，然后再谈下一个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.”