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>