Judging Others' Work
Evidence of your participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization.
What USCIS Looks For
Criterion #4 is one of the most accessible EB-1A criteria. USCIS wants to see that you were invited to evaluate others' work based on your expertise, not merely as a routine assignment.
Key factors: the prestige of the venue (journal, conference, organization), that you were selected based on expertise, and that your evaluations were substantive assessments of the work.
What Judging Activities Qualify?
Qualifying Activities
- • Journal peer reviewer - IEEE, ACM, Springer, Elsevier, etc.
- • Conference program committee - NeurIPS, CVPR, ICML, etc.
- • Editorial board member - Associate Editor, Guest Editor
- • Grant review panels - NSF, NIH, foundation panels
- • Award judging - Stevie Awards, industry competitions
- • Book proposal reviewer - Academic publishers
✕What Doesn't Qualify
- • Reviewing work of your direct reports at work
- • Internal code reviews at your company
- • Evaluating student coursework (unless prestigious competitions)
- • Informal feedback on colleagues' work
- • Reviews for predatory journals with no selectivity
- • Self-initiated reviews not requested by organizations
Types of Judging Opportunities
Journal Peer Review
The most common form of judging for EB-1A. Journals invite experts to evaluate manuscript submissions. Focus on reputable journals with impact factors and rigorous review processes.
- • Best for: Researchers, academics, industry experts with publications
- • Time commitment: 2-5 hours per review
- • Evidence: Invitation emails, thank-you letters, Publons/ORCID records
Conference Program Committees
Serving on program committees for major conferences demonstrates recognition by peers. Top-tier conferences like NeurIPS, CVPR, and CHI are particularly valuable.
- • Best for: Active researchers in their field
- • Time commitment: 10-20 hours per conference cycle
- • Evidence: PC invitation, conference website listing, completion records
Award & Competition Judging
Judging industry awards and competitions shows recognition of your expertise. Organizations like SIIA (CODiE Awards) actively recruit expert judges.
- • Best for: Industry professionals, product experts
- • Time commitment: 10-20 hours per judging cycle
- • Evidence: Invitation letter, judge certificate, acknowledgment
Documentation Strategy
Essential Evidence for Judging Claims
- • Invitation letters/emails showing you were selected to review
- • Thank-you letters from editors or program chairs
- • Reviewer certificates or acknowledgment documents
- • Records of reviews completed (number, dates, venues)
- • Venue prestige documentation (impact factor, acceptance rate, rankings)
- • Publons/ORCID profiles showing verified review activity
Pro Tip: Request Personalized Letters
After completing reviews, request a personalized letter from the editor or program chair. This letter should mention: that you were specifically invited based on expertise, the prestige of the venue, the number of reviews you completed, and the quality of your evaluations. Generic templates are less effective than personalized acknowledgments.
Building Your Judging Portfolio
Quality over quantity: Focus on reviewing for reputable venues. A few reviews for high-impact journals are more valuable than dozens for unknown publications. USCIS evaluates the prestige of venues, not just the number of reviews.
Diversify your experience: Combine journal reviews with conference committees, editorial boards, and award judging. Multiple organizations recognizing your expertise demonstrates broader recognition.
Document everything: Save every invitation, thank-you email, and completion record. Screenshot your reviewer dashboard before platform changes. Build your evidence portfolio as you go.
Track on Publons/ORCID: Platforms like Publons (Web of Science Researcher Profile) provide verified records of your review activity. These serve as authoritative third-party documentation.
Judging Opportunities for EB-1A
Explore these verified judging opportunities. Each has been evaluated for EB-1A relevance, documentation quality, and accessibility.
IEEE Access Reviewer
IEEE
MDPI Board of Reviewers
MDPI
CODiE Awards Judge
SIIA
NeurIPS Reviewer
NeurIPS Foundation
CVPR Reviewer
IEEE/CVF
Frontiers Reviewer
Frontiers Media
Elsevier Reviewer
Elsevier
Springer Nature Reviewer
Springer Nature
ACM Program Committee
ACM
PLOS ONE Reviewer
PLOS
Webby Awards Judge
International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences
Stevie Awards Judge
Stevie Awards
ICLR Reviewer
ICLR
ICML Reviewer
IMLS
AAAI Program Committee
AAAI
IEEE Transactions Reviewer
IEEE
NSF Panel Reviewer
National Science Foundation
Wiley Journal Reviewer
Wiley
NIH Grant Reviewer
National Institutes of Health
Getting Started as a Reviewer
- 1
Identify target journals and conferences
Look for venues where you have published or read regularly. Check impact factors and acceptance rates.
- 2
Register as a reviewer
Most journals have "Become a Reviewer" links. Complete your profile thoroughly, highlighting publications and expertise.
- 3
Complete reviews promptly and thoroughly
Quality reviews lead to repeat invitations. Be constructive, professional, and timely.
- 4
Document everything
Save invitations, request thank-you letters, and track on Publons/ORCID. Build your evidence continuously.
Explore Other EB-1A Criteria
Judging is just one of 10 criteria. Build a comprehensive case by satisfying multiple criteria.
Legal Disclaimer
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration laws and requirements change frequently. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice specific to your situation before making any decisions.