Wow Kritika such a big win. I'm so proud of you

Try and get a review btw from her!

Amazing work @kritika 😄 super proud

Hey Aditi, I see quite some issues in Shikha Parekh's petition and it seems the feedback the team and I was not properly integrated. 1. Scholarly articles, Rizwan's petition is again not used. I do not see any chapter about the impact factors of the journals, the quality of the journals, the citation count and so on. I believe I've given this feedback about 5 times now. Could you clarify why this is not implemented despite me asking so many times? Because if you're facing issues, you should have notified me prior to claiming the petition is finished. You should ask yourself this: • How old are those papers? • How many citations were received during the first year? • How quickly are citations growing? • Are these journals selective? • Are they Q1? • What's the impact factor? • Acceptance rate? • CiteScore? • SCImago ranking? • Are these flagship journals? • How many citations does the average article in those journals receive? • Are these papers outperforming that average? • Is the applicant in the top 5%, top 1%, or top 10% of peers? This is exactly what is needed 1. Reviewing. The first chapter on how she got the review opportunities is rather vague, I still do not know how she got appointed as reviewer and whether the selection criteria are stringent. We need to answer whether there evidence that the applicant was selected because of recognized expertise, along with the prestige of the journals or conferences and the scale of the review activity? 1. LOR's are not specifically quoted, currently you're using "one recommender said" and so forth. When you use an LOR, please name the exhibit and add the quote with name of the recommender. Again this is feedback that's been given last time too, and multiple times by now. 2. Critical role has improved significantly. Please also argue why someone else couldn't simply have performed the same role. You can refer back to quanitifable results like how many people used her inventions and on what scale it was implemented. 3. For original contributions: For every contribution: • Was it adopted elsewhere? • Did other teams use it? • Did it become an organizational standard? • Was it cited by others? • Did customers or third parties benefit? • Did it influence future work? Also, what I'm missing and also discussed with you personally too earlier: why it was original compared to existing solutions. We're not talking about what the company had as a previous implementation and how it got improved with her current invention. This would be very useful because you can show measurable results on how these inventions or projects improved the company, or even hopefully the industry as a whole. So to make it easier: For every original contribution: • What did the industry do before? • What limitation existed? • How and where was it implemented: ◦ Was it adopted elsewhere? ◦ Did other teams use it? ◦ Did it become an organizational standard? ◦ Was it cited by others? ◦ Did customers or third parties benefit? ◦ Did it influence future work? • What gap did the applicant solve? Do you see what I mean? Because now it's still just a description supported by LOR's. but that's it. 5. Please review all exhibit's with the team because the Passport's blank pages are present, I don't think that's needed. @Aditi <!here>

Her citations are not visible on her Google Scholar profile that's why I didn't dig into them much.

That's not a solution though, in that case, and you can check Kanchan's petition too, you will need to highlight perhaps the speed of how we got her current citations. Perhaps it's quicker than the rest of the people publishing in that particular journal. Moreover, there's many other things missing

Alright.

audio_message.m4a

We'll do that.

Sure ma’am.

okay ma'am

Okay ma'am

message has been deleted

Feedback for Nishi @Aarchi Rajdev. I've gone through the petitions and there's a lot of things missing, including the things we discussed earlier in the meeting a week ago. I remember the team discussing how we should explain the exact criteria of memberships, how he got it and the significance of it. I also remember discussing the critical role criteria. I'm not sure if you forgot to add those changes but the petition absolutely is not ready for petitioning. I urge you to contact the client immediately and tell him you need more time. I've given you below an entire sheet of feedback. I would like you to update me regularly, that is, once you've completed a section, so we can do more reviews and set things in motion. I remember this case being very urgent, so daily or bi-daily updates are needed.

Please follow the check I created. I cannot review it in case the checklist has not been used. If you use the checklist correctly, all the changes and things needed should be there. And if you face issues with certain evidences and are not sure how to frame it, please contact me, or the team. Since it's urgent it's important we're not kept in the dark for very long

sharing it once more https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QhTwSIOHrd41HgifXy8Lu4F8hCLwDn7pkjmndkNMfaU/edit?usp=sharing

Sure ma’am.

I765 part Clarified here since it was unclear in my pervious list. For each candidate, the I765 and I131 should be charged separately.

Okay

Hey Team, this is Anuj Kabra's peition (EB1-A) please review this and share your feedback on this. only one media article left otherwise it is complete petition. @Femke @Aarchi Rajdev @Aditi

Team meeting to be held on this @kritika

sure.

I've made the petition for shikha parekh. please take a look.

Did we have a meet today btw? <!here>

I'm wondering how feedback is given. If it's given to each other, it should be noted down here so that it can be remembered after the meet as well + we get to see it as well.

Feedback shikha parekh petition Feedback for shikha parekh @Aditi

@kritika will check yours tomorrow

I will work on these.

Guys, three things I need your responses on: 1. Can we make a bit of a list of memberships and awards that have been used in petitions that are getting approved? For instance, Kanchan's petition can be referenced now. We'll use it to improve our Memberships, Judging, Awards guide. 2. What's the status of the GRE and Fee Waiver blogs? They are very time-sensitive. 3. Finally, I'm hoping that you guys can reduce your dependence on @Femke for the reviews now. The goal while initially involving her was to coach you guys into deciphering what's right vs what's wrong. I feel you guys should need LESS of that support now, not zero. Hence, while she'd like to continue checking the final versions of the petitions, doing 3-4 petition reviews per day isn't her role and you guys will need to take up this one as a team. For each review (that I expect to happen just as frequently still), please have team meetings and share feedback in writing. Why is it needed here in writing? Three reasons. 1. Helps me/Fem know you guys did it. 2. Helps us see who's performing best. 3. Helps the changes come into writing so the person who is working on the petition can fix them later. If they aren't in writing, they'll possibly miss some changes. For example, the recent petition from @Aarchi Rajdev. Basic things such as adding the wrong duration of Experience (Jan 2025 - Jan 2025 as an example) coiuld have been pointed out easily in team reviews. Other things such as not referencing Google scholar, citations, impact factor etc. have been made excuses on later. I expect these things to be taken care of now in team reviews as these are becoming fairly repetitive and some of you guys are performing better than others. During team meetings, these things can be easily resolved. Please start going through the documents in team meetings today. Keep the 2-3 PM time intact for the meetings. It would be worrisome to me if you guys don't need to fight for the slot as there are many reviews to be done daily, and not doing these would generally be remiss to duties in your petitions. Let's give @Femke back her old role of sales and not have her do two jobs. We've taught everything we know and are not refusing future reviews, but are only willing to do the final file reviews from here on out. Also, another protocol not being followed: Changes to previously reviewed petitions are not being mentioned while sharing the files. Do not expect either Fem or your team members to read your entire petition. Specifically mention which parts changed/need review. For questions, please post them here, and in case you have none, please acknowledge this message. Appreciate your cooperation on this.