Make your contribution visible without compressing it into an unsupported business claim. This review focus helps PhD candidates select and explain research evidence for a specific quantitative role.
An academic CV can be the right document for one purpose and an unfocused choice for another. The review considers what the employer requests and which responsibilities the application should address.
The translation to examine
Move from a broad research area to the question, method, evaluation and personal contribution. Preserve what collaborators supplied. Keep submitted, accepted and published work distinct. Select relevant publications and teaching evidence rather than treating every entry as equally important.
A fictional example
Original: “Worked on novel inverse-problem methodologies with applications to complex systems.”
Evidence: implemented a controlled estimator comparison and identified low-signal instability.
Conditional revision: “Implemented controlled comparisons of two estimators under varying measurement noise; documented a failure region and its implications for the next experiment.”
The sentence creates a technical conversation. It does not invent trading impact or claim that the method transfers unchanged to financial data.
Decide which academic details belong
| Material | Keep visible when | Clarify before using it |
|---|---|---|
| Thesis or research project | It demonstrates a method, investigation or implementation relevant to the role | Your question and contribution, rather than only the field's background |
| Selected paper | The work adds relevant evidence or the employer requests publications | Authorship, exact status and a shareable citation |
| Teaching | It shows a concrete explanation or coordination responsibility | What you taught or changed; avoid an unsupported claim about teaching quality |
| Conference presentation | It helps establish communication of the relevant work | Whether you presented, coauthored or attended |
Keep the full academic CV available. Selecting a shorter document for one application should not erase the record or change a submitted manuscript into a published paper. If an employer asks for the full CV, follow that instruction.
The most useful intake note is a short account of what you personally did and what the group supplied. A thesis chapter or confidential research dataset is not needed to resolve a wording or ownership question.
Written deliverable
This uses the same written review scope: diagnosis, prioritized edits, section comments, selected bullet revisions and an editing checklist, with one clarification follow-up. It is not a thesis review, publication assessment or full rewrite.
Provide the current resume or CV, one target role and short notes clarifying contribution or metrics where necessary. You do not need to expose confidential research to explain the general responsibility accurately.
Start free with academic CV to quant resume and the research explanation exercise. The career field guide offers a self-directed fictional PhD case and editable planning tools.
The person and the process
How your document will be reviewed
Reviewer identity and relevant experience will be published here before resume reviews open for purchase.
- Role fit
- Compare the evidence on your resume with the responsibilities in your target description.
- Technical clarity
- Identify your contribution, how it was evaluated and which claims need clarification.
- Editing priorities
- Receive section comments, up to five suggested bullet revisions and a final checklist.
- Follow-up
- One clarification about the delivered feedback, requested within seven calendar days of delivery.
The sample uses a fictional candidate. The service does not include a full rewrite or coaching calls.