Hi, I had participated as a reviewer (as a delegate from my organization) of a research report published by a consortium of industry and academia experts in my field. Kindly suggest if this is a good evidence for the Mandatory Criteria, particularly for the example, “You have held or hold a significant expert role participating on panels, or individually, assessing the work of others in the same field or a field of specialisation related to the digital technology sector.”. My name is mentioned as “Additional Reviewer” in their website. It is present as a reviewer in the publicly available research report and I can show evidences of my review comments, how they were incorporated in the paper and an email communication from the chief editor of the paper thanking me for the review.
I was also invited by the consortium as a voting member for electing the co-chair of one research group. Shall I add that evidence as well for the same? Does it add any value?
Thanks in advance for your kind help.
Hi, your role, backed by published acknowledgement, review comments, and the editor’s email, I think can fit the MC criteria option, even though it does not exactly meet the stated criteria, "participating on panels, or individually, assessing the work of others in the same field " in your own case, you represented your company to publish a research paper in collaboration with academic experts, so this falls more under industry or field research report publication(Research Publication). But if presented properly with evidence showing your assessment or reviewer role, it should be useful.
Then again, adding the voting member evidence strengthens credibility. I think any related, verifiable evidence from external sources is useful. No one can rightly say for sure, which pieces will most convince the assessor. The key is to provide as many relevant evidence as possible while staying within the 3 page limit. Bundle these under one evidence, with the review as the core and voting role as supporting evidence, ensuring all evidence is clear and externally verifiable.
But then, if you ask me, MC is a critical part of your application that is mandatory and must be
met, since you can provide more than one MCs, I will suggest you also use your evidence that closely fit any of the listed acceptable MC as stated by TN to increase your chances, so this one can be a supporting evidence.
All the best.
2 Likes
Thank you @Raphael , for your prompt response and advice on this, noted. Some of the evidences are verifiable externally provided they have log-in credentials to the consortium site. Not sure, how the assessors verify in these situations.
Do you think getting a reference letter from one of the senior executive of the forum and presenting the case as a senior contributor will be much more convincing in the form of example “Outside of your normal day-to-day job role, you were a senior contributor to a large technology-led industry initiative, evidenced through reference letter(s) from global senior project executives.”. My concern is, can this be considered as “Outside of your normal day-to-day job”, since I was a delegate from my company? Thanks.
Since you were delegated by your company I sincerely doubt if it meets the stated criterion.
2 Likes
Thank you @Raphael for the clarification, appreciate it.
I doubt it meets the criteria honestly. It should be a sustained contribution and not something that’s one-time only.
Thank you for your kind response @Akash_Joshi . My understanding is that the sustained contribution and impact to be shown through all those 6-10 MC/OC evidences, however each contribution can be used alone or bundled with another in a single evidence. Is that understanding not correct? Appreciate if you could clarify the same.
i think ypu can use this evidence but my concern would be if the evidence mentions you were representing your company, this will make the evidence inelligble as the preference for you to be invited in your own right not company representation.
2 Likes
Thank you @Francisca_Chiedu for your kind response. The review invitation email I can provide as evidence addresses the research group members, not directly my name or company name. However I am concerned about the use of my company email ID and mention of company name in the research report along with my name. Kindly suggest if mentioning my company name makes it ineligible for MC.
I am also contributing as an author of a Whitepaper in the same group (again on behalf of my company), which is yet to be published. Would you suggest to use it alone or bundle with the review contribution as OC3 evidence?
Appreciate your suggestion on how to use these contributions as MC or OC. Thanks in advance.
From proforma feedback we have seen, assessors often interpret it that the work was I connecting to your day job. You may be lucky, if you have other compelling evidence, it may be overlooked. I won’t use an evidence that suggests that i was representing my employer. Moat times you want to show that you where invited because you are recognised and renowned for your contribution in your field.
1 Like