RFE on the "Authorship" criterion: common objections and how to respond
Updated: Author: Alina Kanametova
Broken down from 61 real denials and RFEs on this criterion: which objections officers raise most often, what each one means and what closes it. Community experience, not legal advice.
Common objections (6)
Scientific nature of the articles not proven
The officer believes it has not been shown that the materials are scholarly articles in nature.
What fixes it: Submit the full texts of the articles and an explanation that they report original research, use a scholarly format, include citations and methodology, and are intended for specialists.Tool How it was closed
Incomplete evidence record
The officer acknowledges the article or authorship, but denies the petition because the publication record is incomplete.
What fixes it: Submit a complete record: full copies of the articles, title pages, publication details, DOI/URL, journal information, and a translation if needed.Tool How it was closed
No evidence for the criterion
No supporting materials were submitted for this criterion.
What fixes it: Add the publications, proof of authorship, information about the publication venues, and a structured exhibit list.Tool How it was closed
Appropriate type of publication not proven
The officer requires proof that the articles were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
What fixes it: Add evidence of the publication's status: journal profile, audience, indexing, circulation, ranking, publisher, and industry significance.Tool How it was closed
Plain language elements not met
The officer notes that the criterion requires authorship, scholarly nature, and publication in an appropriate source at the same time.
What fixes it: Break the evidence down by the three elements of the criterion: authorship, scholarly material, and qualifying publication/media.Tool How it was closed
Passed initial, but not final merits
Even if the publications are acknowledged, the officer does not see enough weight in the evidence at the Final Merits Determination stage.
What fixes it: Add context showing the significance of the publications: citations, use of the work, independent reviews, impact on the field, and comparative metrics.Tool How it was closed
How to respond (from real cases)
The deadline (up to 87 days), the packet order and how long a decision takes - in the general guide to the RFE response by criterion.
Scientific nature of the articles not established
Explain that the materials are scientific publications: they include a research question, methodology, data analysis, conclusions, references, and underwent editorial or peer review.
What to attach: Full article texts, abstracts, bibliography, information about peer review or editorial policy, journal page screenshots, and editorial letters if needed.
Incomplete set of evidence
Assemble a single package for each publication to connect the author, article, publication, date, topic, and scientific nature of the material.
What to attach: Article PDFs, title pages, issue tables of contents, author pages, DOI or URL, archived links, translations, publication certificates, bibliographic records.
No evidence for the criterion
Directly match the evidence to the criterion of authorship of scientific articles in professional or major industry publications.
What to attach: Publication table with columns: title, date, publication, type of publication, author role, field, link, supporting document.
Appropriate type of publication not established
Show that the publication is scientific, professional, or a major industry publication, not a personal blog, advertising platform, or irrelevant website.
What to attach: Publisher description, ISSN, indexing, editorial board, author guidelines, audience data, impact metrics, circulation or traffic, publication profile.
Plain language elements not addressed
Explain in plain language why each article relates to the applicant's field, what problem it solves, and why the publication required professional expertise.
What to attach: Brief plain language summaries for each article, explanation of terms, connection to the field of work, highlighted excerpts from the methodology and conclusions.
Passed initial review, but not final merits
Split the response into two parts: first prove formal satisfaction of the criterion, then show the weight of the evidence in the final merits assessment.
What to attach: Summary table of publications, proof of scientific nature, citations, independent mentions, use of the work by other specialists, and connection between publications and professional contributions.
Author role not sufficiently established
Show that the applicant was a real author or coauthor, not just a project participant or a person mentioned in passing.
What to attach: Article pages with authorship, author contribution, correspondence with the editorial office, ORCID or author profile, coauthor letters, confirmation of contribution to the research and text.
Mistakes that sink the response
- Confusing authored publications with publications about the applicant: interviews, PR materials, and media articles about a person usually do not prove the authorship criterion if the applicant is not the author of expert content.
- Submitting only links without screenshots, PDFs, dates, the author's name, and translations: the officer may not search for the information independently and may not give the material credit.
- Relying on weak or paid platforms without explaining their professional status: if a publication looks like a blog, aggregator, or pay-to-publish placement, you need to address that risk in advance with evidence.
- Adding new publications in an RFE after the filing date as the main evidence for the criterion: it is usually safer to use them only as additional proof of continued activity, not as the basis for eligibility as of the filing date.
- Failing to explain the connection between the articles and the claimed field: publications on general topics, personal notes, or materials outside the specialization may be rejected as irrelevant.
How often the criterion is accepted in challenged petitions
Among petitions that drew an RFE, NOID or denial and claimed this criterion, the officer accepted it in 44% of cases (86 of 196).
This is not an approval rate. The sample is petitions that were challenged, so it says how often a claimed criterion survived scrutiny - nothing about how often EB-1A petitions succeed overall.
Based on: 253 coded USCIS I-140 notices (RFE, NOID, denial) · updated Sep 6, 2026 · RFE by criterion
The wording of the criterion, sentence by sentence
From preparation practice: answering the RFE
Preparation practice, not the law: the numbers are practitioners' rules of thumb and appear nowhere in USCIS rules. The criterion text itself: EB-1A: 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(vi); O-1: 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6).
If an RFE arrives
- If the officer doubts the journal is peer reviewed and its website does not describe the process, ask the editorial office for a letter: how manuscripts are reviewed, how many reviewers, what share of submissions is rejected, when yours was accepted. That settles the point faster than general descriptions of the journal.
This criterion elsewhere on the site
Got an RFE? Upload it - we will break down the objections automatically
A free response plan from your document: we identify the officer's objections and suggest what to attach.
From community practice
A strong petition usually meets more than the required minimum of three criteria, with a margin on each - common advice in chats to reduce RFE risk.
What determines the strength of evidence is not the fact itself but its context: scale, selectivity and independent confirmation. This runs through almost every community case review.
Support letters are stronger when written by independent experts familiar with your work who cite concrete results rather than general praise.
Distilled from public community chats - observations, not legal advice.
From community discussions
«People often don't understand the structure of a petition: when they say "I'll prepare everything," they think all that's left is to package it. But each item there needs several others. Like, here's a media article - and you need a pile of exports about the outlet's ratings and a description of the outlet itself, plus all of it with translations.»
Olga · from public community chats
«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
Personal opinions of community members from public discussions, not legal advice.
Approval stories
What the officer actually did with this criterion
Across 191 of 259 real notices where this criterion appears, what the officer's own text did with it. In 37% he discussed the evidence that was filed; in 47% the criterion appeared only as recited regulation.
- engaged with the evidence37% · 71the officer wrote about the specific exhibits, not the criterion in general
- only recited the criterion47% · 90the regulation text with no discussion of what was filed
- questioned it6% · 11asked for more without deciding
- explicitly rejected it3% · 6
- explicitly accepted it7% · 13
These are notices - petitions that already drew an RFE, a NOID or a denial - so none of this is an approval rate. It measures attention, not outcome: a criterion the officer usually only recites is one where more exhibits are unlikely to change the reading, and a criterion he argues with in detail is where the response has to do its work.
What people ask about this criterion
RFE on other criteria
Generalized from real community RFEs/denials (anonymized). Independent project, not affiliated with USCIS; not legal advice.