Mc1 reviewer for Ieee and editorial board member for IGI global international journal for Ai and engineering fields plus submitted an evidence of reviewing for a premier Ai conference
Mc2 led the growth of of a nonprofit profit organisation as a project manager I had an impact by introducing drone and coding workshops grants and designing an automated grant system with reference letter from ceo stating my contributions
Mc3 got 2 international awards tech personality and from a prestigious international conference with media recognition top newspaper and the awards and references
Mc4 reviewed for iet and was invited to speak by BCS uk
OC2 mentoring with impact of 2500 students
Speaking at 2 cybersecurity tech conference
Reviewer certificate and invitation to review from a journal
Oc4
Endorsement letter from a prof,
10 published papers
3 conference presentations
Hi @Victor_Oriakhi sorry about the outcome! You can build an appeal and address all the points in feedback by routing to exact parts of your evidences which actually indicate what the assessors have not accepted.
Thanks Pahuja can I share my appeal with you cus a lot of misinterpreting Assessor
It’s very tough to comment fairly on an appeal without reviewing the full application itself because the appeal is based on the application
Can I share a screenshot and also wondering have there been cases where all 3 were rejected and after reviewing it was successful
@pahuja these where my evidence’s submitted
Mc1 reviewer for Ieee and editorial board member for IGI global international journal for Ai and engineering fields plus submitted an evidence of reviewing for a premier Ai conference
Mc2 led the growth of of a nonprofit profit organisation as a project manager I had an impact by introducing drone and coding workshops grants and designing an automated grant system with reference letter from ceo stating my contributions
Mc3 got 2 international awards tech personality and from a prestigious international conference with media recognition top newspaper and the awards and references
Mc4 reviewed for iet and was invited to speak by BCS uk
OC2 mentoring with impact of 2500 students
Speaking at 2 cybersecurity tech conference
Reviewer certificate and invitation to review from a journal
Oc4
Endorsement letter from a prof,
10 published papers
3 conference presentations
Depending on how you presented your evidence, I think your evidence should meet the selected criteria. The feedback sounds dismissive. Take some time to gather information and metrics to show these are recognised organisations. Point them to examples in the tech nation guide that show how you meet the criteria.
1 Like
I have attached the comments I intend sending for appeal. Please I need your review
Please @Francisca_Chiedu when you get the chance please help me check my proposed review for submission. I need your feedback and suggestions. Thanks
I think you response in the first box is fine. Are there part of your submissions that were overlooked! For the second box, you can claim to have mentored over 2500. Training may be more appropriate, add that you have advanced the sector through the development of talent which addresses skills shortage on the sector. Ensure you list how your evidence match the tech nation. Guide. If the box is too small, along side your fork, you can submit a word document.
2 Likes
