Hello, can you please review my draft application? I feel that my mandatory criteria is weak, probably I can move the presentation from OC4 to MC, maybe also a paper?
LOR
1.- CSO of a Biotech startup
2.- CSO of a biotech startup with multiple patents
3.- Team lead of Bioinformatics teams
MC
I work in a startup where I designed and implemented the entire pipeline, database, and cloud infrastructure in a couple of months, and with that, we are able to be prepared to scale up.
Letter of CTO telling how this technical aspect will help us to scale.
Letter of CEO telling how this would help to increase business.
(I command a high salary, but in my country, it is difficult to have information about that. Maybe if I have a letter from someone that is a leader of that industry writing how much the average wage is.)
OC1
I worked in a startup where I led the innovation of a pipeline where I decreased in a high amount the turnaround time of the process, doing reverse engineering of a third-party tool that we were dependent on.
Letter of my manager saying how this innovation impacted the startup.
Granted patent
Examples how the patent is relevant to the industry.
Letter of a manager that was also part of the patent.
OC4
Peer review bioinformatics conference speaker with ~200 attendees.
Papers in Q1 journals (more than one).
PhD grant scholarship from a national government agency with a ~38% acceptance rate.
Letter from research advisor outlining how I can contribute to the industry.
Do the recommenders have credible experience in tech to be regarded as experts in the field?
MC:
• Please include industry recognition or third-party validation for the work you did at the startup. Internal evidence alone will not be sufficient for MC.
• Submitting two letters as separate evidence documents is excessive and will likely be flagged. Retain only one letter, ensuring it highlights the industry impact of your contribution.
• A letter to justify high salary will not be accepted. You must include a benchmarking source (e.g., Glassdoor). Also note that salary evidence alone is not enough unless supported by strong additional MC evidence, which currently appears limited.
OC1:
• Make sure you clearly demonstrate what makes it innovative and include proof of market traction supported by third-party evidence. Internal process improvements typically don’t qualify as innovation.
• Please confirm whether you are the patent’s author.
Yes, the recommenders have credible experience in the field.
Regarding the salary evidence, there is no public record of an average wage for my position here in my country, Glassdoor doesn’t list it. I should drop that evidence, maybe?
Yes, I’m a listed patent author, among others, and it was a combined effort. I’ll state which part is mine.
Sounds good! Yes drop the salary evidence and the name on the patent is great but since it has other co-authors please ensure you highlight the value of your part in this patent and not just highlighting your part.
Your application shows strong technical depth with your biotech work, but I see some areas that need attention based on successful applications I’ve reviewed. For your Mandatory Criteria, the startup work is good but you need external validation beyond internal letters. I’ve seen similar biotech applications succeed by getting their pipeline work featured in industry publications or presenting at biotech conferences where they’re recognized as experts, not just employees.
Your patent is excellent for OC1, but make sure you clearly highlight your specific contribution and how it advances the field beyond just your company. The conference presentation with 200 attendees is strong, but combine it with your Q1 journal publications to create one comprehensive OC4 evidence piece. I’ve seen rejections when applicants submit multiple academic achievements separately instead of showing how they work together to demonstrate sector contribution.
You can compare the salary evidence against UK if it’s comparable. You should also focus on how your pipeline innovation has been adopted by others or influenced industry practices. The third-party validation comment from the reviewer is crucial - you need evidence from outside your company ecosystem that validates your work’s impact.
Your PhD scholarship and academic work create a solid foundation for OC4, especially combined with your publications. With some refinement to add external validation and clearer demonstration of sector impact, your application has strong potential for success.