Major Media or Scholarly Journal: Required Metrics

These are two different criteria

Before collecting evidence, it's important to understand which criterion you are claiming-this determines which metrics apply.

• Authorship of scientific articles refers to articles you have written in a scientific or professional publication. The authority is shown by journal metrics: impact factor, quartile, indexing.
• Published materials in major media refers to materials about you (such as interviews or profiles) in major or professional outlets. The authority is demonstrated by the outlet's reach, circulation, and ratings.

Community members warn about this directly:

1. If you are the author of the article (a proper scientific article in a scholarly journal or in a field-specific publication), this is the criterion 'authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media.' 2. If the article is about you and your work (in the form of an interview or a story about you), and it specifies the journalist's name and publication date, this falls under the criterion 'published materials about you in professional or major trade publications or other major media.' These are two different criteria, do not confuse them.

What the regulations require for each publication

For the published materials criterion, the review process breaks down into four elements, and officers check them in sequence.

The plain language of this criterion requires evidence (1) of published material, (2) that the published material contains the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation, (3) that the published material is about the petitioner relating to the petitioner's work in the field, and (4) that the published material qualifies as professional or major trade publications or other major media.

The second item is the most routine and the most frustrating: materials without a title, date, or author are rejected without even considering the publication's status.

"The inclusion of the title, date, and author of the material is not optional."

"It is noted that two of the articles provided did not attribute an author, therefore, have no probative value."

A letter from the editorial office that retroactively names the author does not resolve this gap. Officers note that the authorship must be visible in the published piece itself.

What Are the Metrics for Major Media

News and industry publications do not have impact factors. Instead, their authority is shown differently:

• Reach and circulation - significant national or international distribution.
• Position in media rankings and brand recognition.
• Comparison with competitors and independent audience data (for example, SimilarWeb).
• For a local publication: proof that it is part of a well-known national or international brand.

For the publications criterion, USCIS mainly considers the publication's reach:

"For published material to qualify as major media, an officer looks at whether the publication or broadcast has significant national or international distribution."

In practice, strong evidence of status is collected according to three criteria, each supported by its own set of documents.

This is what collections of evidence look like in real cases: for example, a publication's status is proven by showing its audience measurement places it in the same peer group as nationally recognized business media, and editorial control is demonstrated by listing the editorial team and professional awards.

Community members share strategies for strengthening the media appendix: show that the publication is part of a major brand and not just a local outlet, and back this up with audience data and rankings.

For media, it's important to show that a local publication is not just local but the national edition of a well-known international brand. Getting published there means a national level. Also, be sure to describe the stature of the main brand. Include reach, articles, competition comparisons, all sorts of rankings and statistics. SimilarWeb, articles in other major media about these media, etc.

A separate nuance: locality is defined not only by the publication, but also by where the material is published. Even with a national newspaper, an article in a section for a specific district does not build your reputation outside that district.

Website circulation does not count

The most common trap is using circulation or audience data from the publication's own website. USCIS does not treat such data as independent.

"With regard to a publication's own circulation statistics, USCIS need not accept self-serving assertions of circulation data. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 317 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media)."

A subtler trap: swapping out circulation numbers for web traffic stats. Officers analyze the difference very literally:

"You provided data from similarweb.com which is a tool to broadly determine estimations of internet domain traffic, not to determine a publication's circulation. Circulation is a count of how many copies of a particular publication are distributed. Visits and/or pageviews occurs when someone lands and/or is redirected to a site from an external page such as Google or another website but did not choose to go to that site. Therefore, the circulation count of a published material is not the same as visitation estimates."

This does not mean analytics are useless. USCIS specifically acknowledges SimilarWeb data is not self-serving, but one source is not enough, and numbers without context say nothing. Officers state their data requirements quite specifically:

"The circulation statistics for the publications are to be compared against at least two separate media traffic analytics that are in the Petitioner's country, during the same timeframe of the Petitioner's publications, in the same format (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly etc.) and in the same field of endeavor."

The same principle also works the other way: the online and print versions of a publication are considered separate entities, and print newspaper stats do not prove the status of its website.

In the community, people recommend not trusting a publication's claims at face value and to verify real reach using independent tools:

Plus, just look at what they tell you about a 'major' site with 30 million visits, say you'll get a great article, and then rub their noses in a screenshot showing 300,000 visits per month.

Portals, blogs, and video: what almost always gets rejected

A separate group of denials has nothing to do with the size of the audience. Officers look for editorial control on the platform.

"The record provided material disseminated by web portals; however, web portals are not publications."

"User-created content, blogs, social media, web portals, or a company's website are not subject to editorial review and are not therefore commensurate with published major media or a professional or major trade publication."

USCIS officers reject Wikipedia, IMDb, and similar platforms, referencing case law:

"Wikipedia, web portals, domains, blogs, social media: there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from these open, user-edited Internet sites. See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 901-11 (8th Cir. 2008)."

There are specific rules for video and audio materials. Without a published transcript, such material is usually not taken into account for this criterion. Interviews on radio are not considered at all, because the regulation requires written material and an author.

"Interviews from radio stations are not published material as contemplated by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iii) which references written work and specifically requires evidence of an author. As such, the evidence regarding the radio interview is not probative."

And a general principle to remember before you start collecting links:

"While internet websites can be accessed worldwide, we cannot ignore that anyone with a computer can create a website. Not every brief mention on a website can be considered published material about the petitioner appearing in major media."

The material must be about you, not simply with your participation

Even a flawless publication will not help if the material is not about you. This is the second most common group of denials.

"The submitted articles were primarily about your work. The articles mention your name or include your opinion, but published material must not simply be about your work, but about you - though it may not be unrelated to your work."

What officers list as "not about you":

• brief mention, quote, citation, or photo without discussing your work;
• industry articles where you are an expert commentator;
• materials about your employer, project, or product;
• event reports and competition results where you are simply listed;
• marketing and advertising materials, press releases, and rewritten press releases;
• articles written by yourself - these fall under another criterion.

"At issue is the articles content rather than the publisher. In this instant case, the articles discuss the broad field rather than the petitioner."

"An article cannot be about someone if it does not find it necessary to even identify them, let alone discuss them in a meaningful way."

A separate concern is about interviews published in bulk right before submission: officers refer to such materials as promotional articles.

Same publication: accepted and rejected

Understand this before you start searching for an "approved media list." No such list exists, and the body of decisions makes this clear: the very same Russian mass media outlet may be accepted in one decision ("the piece is about the applicant and their work in the field, the criterion is met"), rejected in another for being a tabloid, and listed among denied web portals alongside a dozen other domains in a third.

This leads to two practical conclusions.

The deciding factor is not the publication name, but the evidence package. The same domain will be accepted when it is accompanied by independent data showing audience reach for the required year, proof of editorial control, and a piece genuinely about the applicant.

Traffic alone is not decisive. The media database behind the media checker tool includes 271 outlets, ranging from websites with tens of thousands of monthly visits to platforms with tens of millions. However, even in lists officers rejected as "web portals," you'll find Russian websites with audiences in the millions. Audience size is an argument, not a criterion.

What USCIS considers a scholarly article

If you're using the authorship criterion, it's not enough to prove the journal's status - the article itself must appear scholarly. USCIS directly states the features of a scholarly article:

"Scholarly articles generally report on original research or experimentation, involve scholarly investigations, contain substantial footnotes or bibliographies, and are peer reviewed. The record does not demonstrate that these characteristics have been met."

So an expert note or editorial column without original research, citations, or peer review might not meet this criterion, even if the journal is reputable. For such material, the media publications criterion may sometimes be more appropriate. For an in-depth look at the scholarly track, see the scientific journal authority metrics article.

Common mistakes

• Circulation data taken from the publication's own website will not be accepted by an officer.
• Only one analytics service is provided, without comparison to similar outlets for the same period.
• The article was written by you but submitted as media publications (this criterion requires materials about you).
• The material lacks a headline, date, or author - it will be rejected on formal grounds.
• A local publication is submitted without proof that it is part of a major brand.
• The piece appeared on a portal, blog, or user-generated content platform.
• Video or podcast provided without a published transcript.
• An expert note is submitted as a scholarly article even though it does not meet scholarly standards.
• A screenshot of audience reach lacks the outlet's name and address - the source cannot be verified.

Conclusions

1. Authorship and media publications are separate criteria with different metrics. First, decide which one you are claiming.
2. For the publication criterion, the officer checks four elements: headline, date, and author are all mandatory along with the publication's status.
3. Major media outlets are proven by three indicators: significant national audience, national or professional distribution, and editorial oversight.
4. Circulation and website traffic are not the same. You need independent data from at least two sources for the same period and in the same format.
5. Officers do not consider portals, blogs, or platforms with user-generated content as publications, and videos without transcripts are not reviewed.
6. The material must be about you, not about your company, industry, or an event where you are merely mentioned.
7. There is no list of "approved media outlets": the same publication has been both accepted and rejected in different cases. The decision depends on your evidence package.

Examples of Proving Major Media Status

Komsomolskaya Pravda (KP.ru) - Gold Standard Example

[details="Documents for proving KP.ru major status (full list)"]

Why this is a gold standard example:

• Global recognition: Scimago #37 in the world alongside NYT
• Guinness Record - irrefutable historical significance
• #1 brand among newspapers for 12 consecutive years (2013-2025)
• State awards: Soviet orders + contemporary Order of Honor
• Recognition by Western media (The Guardian)
• Partner of Russia's top forums (SPIEF, EEF)

[/details]

Examples of Proving Major Media Status for Specific Outlets

Below are real examples of documents used to prove major media status. Use them as templates for your own publications.

Forbes Kazakhstan - Global Brand

[details="Documents for proving Forbes KZ major status"]

Works because: National award + academic recognition (Harvard) + connection to the global Forbes brand.

[/details]

Express-Gazeta (eg.ru) - Example of a Federal Russian Media Outlet

[details="How to prove eg.ru major status"]

Why it works: Medialogia rankings from different years (2022, 2025) + multiple types of recognition (Mail.ru, Medialogia, sales ranking) + international reach (5 countries) + journalist awards.

[/details]

Svobodnaya Pressa - Example with International Journalist Award

[details="Documents for proving Svobodnaya Pressa major status"]

Why it works: International journalist award (PRC Friendship Prize) + coverage in Kommersant + ranking dynamics (2014->2023->2025) + media holding with printing facility + 22 million visits.

[/details]

Rossiyskaya Gazeta - Example of a Government Publication

[details="Documents for proving RG major status"]

Why it works: Official government publication (publishes Russian federal laws) + international scale (27 countries, 22 websites in 16 languages) + 30+ years of history + numerous awards.

[/details]

Pravda.ru - Example with Rankings Across Different Years

[details="How to prove Pravda.ru major status"]

Key facts:

• One of the oldest online media outlets in Russia (since 1999)
• International version in English
• Millions of readers per month

Tip: Use Wayback Machine to show historical traffic data. This demonstrates sustained major status.

[/details]

Argumenty Nedeli - Example with International Recognition

[details="How to prove Argumenty Nedeli major status"]

Key facts:

• Federal weekly newspaper
• Print circulation 150,000+ copies
• Online version argumenti.ru
• Distribution in 80+ Russian regions

There are successful approval cases with this publication.

[/details]

TAdviser - Example of a Trade Publication for IT

[details="How to prove TAdviser professional/trade status"]

Why it works as a trade publication:

• Target audience: business/IT professionals (CIOs, IT directors)
• Multi-year rankings (2011-2024) - sustained recognition
• Industry awards (Digital Journalism 2023-2024, PR in IT, Russoft)
• Organizer of awards and conferences (IT PRIZE, TAdviser SummIT)
• Citation by federal media (Kommersant)

Approval example

"In support of this criterion, you submitted articles from: www.eg.ru; www.tadviser.ru; Cover letters citing Similarweb statistics... USCIS has reviewed the evidence submitted in support of this classification and has determined that you have established eligibility under this regulatory criterion."

Criterion credited! What worked: eg.ru + tadviser.ru + SimilarWeb data in cover letters.

[/details]

International Media (Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, UK)

Ukrainian Media

For Ukrainian media, it is important to demonstrate national leadership within the country. USCIS understands that Ukrainian media have a smaller audience than American ones but evaluates them as major media within the context of their own country.

[details="Dialog.ua (Ukraine) - example with Newsweek citation"]

Documents for proving major media status:

Why this works:

• Newsweek citation - American magazine since 1933 recognized Dialog.ua as a reliable source
• High engagement (8+ minute session) - demonstrates content quality
• Commercial value ($1.8 million) - objective significance assessment
• 25+ million visits per quarter - national media scale

[/details]

[details="Focus.ua (Ukraine) - example of Ukrainian major media"]

Documents for proving major media status:

Why this works for Ukrainian media:

• Multiple independent rankings (ON News, Institute of Mass Information, Feedspot)
• Specific positions (#6, #10, #22 in different rankings)
• Comparison with leaders (alongside pravda.com.ua, censor.net)
• Audience growth (+20% in SimilarWeb)
• Print version + online = multi-platform presence

[/details]

[details="Gazeta.ua (Ukraine) - example with European recognition"]

Documents for proving major media status:

Why this works:

• European recognition (Eurotopics) - independent international source
• Institutional recognition (IMI, Media Ownership Monitor)
• High engagement (7 minutes per session - above average)
• Competitor comparison - demonstrates niche leadership
• Long history (since 2005)

[/details]

[details="Meta.ua (Ukraine) - example with national award"]

Documents for proving major media status:

Why this works:

• National award 2 consecutive years (2023-2024) - independent recognition
• Comparison with TV channels - awarded alongside Channel 24, M1
• Three analytics systems (Ahrefs, SimilarWeb, SEMrush)
• Long history (since 2000) - stability
• Big Tech interest in the domain - indirect confirmation of significance

[/details]

[details="UAInfo.org (Ukraine) - example with international citations"]

Documents for proving major media status:

Why this works:

• International citations (Kyiv Post, Georgian Journal) - independent confirmation of authority
• Multiple verifications (On-News, PrFlare, PRNEWS.io, ZoomInfo) - each platform independently confirms status
• Partnership with national award - country-level recognition
• Comparison with leaders - listed alongside Pravda.com.ua, TSN.ua, RBC.ua
• International audience - traffic from 6+ countries proves global reach

[/details]

Other CIS Countries

[details="Super.kg (Super-Info, Kyrgyzstan) - example for a country-level media outlet"]

Documents for proving major media status:

Why this works:

• National awards 2 consecutive years (2018, 2019)
• Multiple independent rankings (Top-5, Top-25, #3 by traffic)
• Recognition by international organizations (BBC, Soros Foundation)
• For a country-level media outlet, it is important to show leadership WITHIN THE COUNTRY

[/details]

Trade Publications (UK)

[details="TechBullion (UK) - trade publication example"]

Documents for proving major trade publication status:

Why this works as a trade publication:

• Official UK registration - Companies House confirms legitimacy
• Silicon Valley Times recognition - independent status confirmation
• Citation by major media - the outlet itself serves as a source for other media
• Newswire function - distribution channel role for the fintech industry
• Professional audience - fintech/investing/marketing specialists

[/details]

Additional Officer Objections to Major Status Evidence

Objection: internet accessibility ≠ major media

"USCIS is not persuaded that international accessibility via the internet by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given publication is 'major media.' And posting an article online does not transform an otherwise local media or a vendor's website into major media nationally or internationally."

The officer states: the fact that a website is accessible worldwide does not make it major media. Publishing online does not transform a local outlet into an international one.

Objection: liveinternet.com and metrica.guru are not convincing

"You have provided no evidence that liveinternet.com and metrica.guru are websites known for providing credible information regarding the status of media sources within Russia. One web traffic analysis website on its own is not persuasive to establish a source is considered major media. There should be independent documentation from several other credible sources."

The officer states: you used liveinternet and metrica.guru, but did not prove these are authoritative sources. One analytics service is insufficient. Multiple independent sources are needed.

Objection: liveinternet.ru and mlg.ru must be PROVEN as credible

"Please note you have not established that liveinternet.ru and mlg.ru are credible sources for website traffic."

The officer states directly: you have NOT PROVEN that liveinternet.ru and mlg.ru are authoritative sources. It is not enough to simply provide data - you need to explain WHY this source can be trusted.

Objection: MEDIA RANKINGS for the country are needed, not just web traffic

"We note your submission of website traffic for the sources from similarweb.com. Yet information from the website analysis tools (similarweb.com, liveinternet.ru, mlg.ru) is inconclusive. One web traffic analysis website on its own is not persuasive to establish a source is considered major media. There should be independent documentation from several other credible sources to establish a media source (print, TV, website, etc.) is considered major media. The independent credible sources documentation should include lists ranking a country's top media sources in print, television, etc., not simply web traffic numbers and rankings of websites compared to other websites."

Critically important: the officer requires not just web traffic, but "lists ranking a country's top media sources". Official country media rankings (print, TV) are needed, not just website comparisons.

Objection: "vague evidence" + web traffic ≠ major

"You have submitted vague evidence of general overviews and website traffic for the above mentioned media. With the above characteristics noted, information presented was inconclusive as web pages can be accessed both intentionally and unintentionally. We are not persuaded that accessibility, web traffic analysis, or page views by themselves a realistic indicator of whether a given website is 'major media' commensurate with the regulatory requirements."

The officer states: your evidence is "vague". Traffic includes accidental visits - that is not an indicator of major media. Accessibility ≠ major status.

Objection: online publication does not make media major

"The mere act of posting an article online does not transform what is otherwise local media or a vendor's website into major media. The record lacks evidence that the online sites constitute major media or a professional or major trade sources."

The officer states: simply posting an article online does not make a publication major. Evidence that this is truly major media is needed, not just a website.

"Mere act of posting online does not meet this criterion"

"You submitted information from website analysis tools, which is inconclusive. Websites can be blogs, vendors, search engines, news, social media or a variety of other classifications. Pages are accessed both intentionally and unintentionally. We are not persuaded that accessibility or page views by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given website is 'major media' commensurate with the regulatory requirements. The mere act of posting an article online does not meet this criterion."

The clearest formulation: "posting online does not meet this criterion". The officer lists website types (blogs, vendors, search engines, social media) and states that page views are not an indicator of major media.

Roskomnadzor registration ≠ major media

"You provided material from rkn.gov.ru showing the internet media were registered with Roskomnadzor. You also provided narrative and explanations, but the record of proceeding does not contain independent evidence corroborating your narrative. Without objectivity, these explanations have little evidentiary weight."

Important for Russian media: Roskomnadzor registration (rkn.gov.ru) only shows the outlet is officially registered media but does NOT prove it is major. Your explanations without independent evidence = "little evidentiary weight".

Medialogia - methodology must be EXPLAINED

"We acknowledge the information/data from rkn.gov.ru, and mlg.ru, such as the rankings and cited information. However, the evidence does not provide circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade publications and other major media) of the published material to other statistics. Furthermore, you did not provide evidence to explain rkn.gov.ru, and mlg.ru standards of procedure and guidelines. You did not provide evidence that rkn.gov.ru, and mlg.ru methods of evaluation are accurate and fair."

The officer requires not just Medialogia data, but an EXPLANATION of how Medialogia calculates rankings. You must attach a methodology description and prove the methods are "accurate and fair".

Medialogia - newspaper rankings do not prove major status of an online source

"You provided evidence from sources such as mlg.ru that indicate rankings and/or cited newspaper information; but the evidence does not indicate the relative circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade publications and other major media) of the published material (compared) to other statistics. Nor does it verify that the online source material (URL addresses) is considered professional or major trade publications or other major media."

The officer states: Medialogia provides NEWSPAPER rankings but does not prove major status of the ONLINE VERSION. A ranking of argumenti.ru in Medialogia does not mean argumenti.ru is major media.

Medialogia - hyperlink rankings are not convincing (medicine)

"The petitioner provided material from the publications' own respective websites and analytic information from Medialogy, but this only provides rankings of other social media pharmaceutical and medicine websites based on the number of hyperlinks that were posted on other social media websites. The petitioner did not submit any objective, documentary evidence which demonstrates that either website qualifies as professional or major trade publications or other major media."

Rankings based on the number of hyperlinks on social media are insufficient. "Objective, documentary evidence" is needed to prove major status.

Media rankings alone ≠ major media

"The petitioner submitted media rankings and media citation rankings. However, media rankings alone do not automatically establish that a publication is considered major media. The petitioner did not submit probative evidence to establish the publication's reputation and influence."

The officer states directly: media rankings (Medialogia, SimilarWeb, etc.) alone do NOT prove major status. Additional evidence of "reputation and influence" is needed.

Online source ≠ Print publication - prove SEPARATELY

"You provided evidence for Newspapers; however, online sources (URL addresses) and newspapers may be separate and distinct from one another, and one and/or both may not be considered professional or major trade publications or other major media. For example, the evidence may indicate the ranking and/or cited information of the newspaper, but not provide evidence/information for the online source material (URL address)."

Critically important: the online version and the print newspaper are SEPARATE entities for USCIS. Proving that Kommersant (the newspaper) is major is not enough. You need to separately prove that kommersant.ru (the website) is also major.

Data year must match the publication year

"The information from akarussia.ru, and kp.ru is for the year 2022, and not for the year (2024) the claimed publications were printed online and/or in print edition."

The officer rejected 2022 data for a 2024 publication. Media statistics must be from the same year as your article. If the article was published in 2024 - you need 2024 data.

Matter of Katigbak - articles AFTER the filing date are not credited

Court Precedent

"You provided printouts from blizko.by, 4esnok.by, neg.by, et al.; however, the evidence is dated after the filing of the Form I-140 on February 28, 2023. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Subsequent developments or events in the petitioner's career cannot retroactively establish that he was eligible for the classification sought as of the filing date."

Source: Matter of Katigbak

Important when responding to an RFE: even if you receive new publications AFTER filing the I-140, they cannot be used in your RFE response. Eligibility is determined as of the filing date.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Materials

Related materials - Gather your evidence

• Recommendation letters for O-1, EB-1A, NIW: a strong set
• Strong recommendation letter: structure by section
• Why recommendation letters get rejected: 20 reasons from RFEs
• Document Translations for O-1, EB-1, and EB-2 NIW Petitions
• Translator Certificate for O-1/EB-1/EB-2 Petitions
• How to Prove a Journal or Publication Is Authoritative
• Journal authority: impact factor, quartile, indexing
• Business plan structure for a visa petition: sections
• EB-2 NIW business plan: what it includes and how it works
• A US work plan for EB-1A: what 8 CFR 204.5(h)(5) requires
• Which boxes you are closing
• Is the case ready to file

All articles in «Gather your evidence»

Next stepEvidence sources: media, awards, journalsIs this outlet major media for the publications criterion? Check the 300+ outlet base, rate an award or journal, ask AI.

Documents and templates from the library

• PR-CY traffic snapshot for news site, Nov 2023Example petition2 pages anonymized access on request
• O-1 exhibit sample for a media articleTemplate22 pages anonymized access on request
• BCS Fellowship interview prep guide, Apr 2026Guide7 pages anonymized access on request
• Approved EB-1 evidence set for real estate developmentGuide1 page anonymized access on request

From community discussions

• «If the article goes as Subscription, you don't pay a penny; if for Open access, then yes, you have to fork out. Springerlink and Elsevier always offer a choice; MDPI is only paid, in AIAA you can definitely find free, same as in IEEE.»

  Karasu · from public community chats

• «In my experience, journals always charged money for publication, plus you can pay extra to make the article open access, plus you have to pay extra for additional pages. In IEEE you can ask for a discount if you show that you're, say, from a poor country.»

  community member · from public community chats

• «If the article is in a noname journal, that's no good. Good journals will be indexed somewhere at least. Okay, not WoS, Scopus, at least in the VAK list or RINTs. And you also need to show they're cited, that is, that your data is of interest to someone. There are no official requirements, there are unwritten ones for approval.»

  Olga · from public community chats

Personal opinions of community members from public discussions, not legal advice.

Did this answer help?

YesNo