I am writing this after not passing the written application screening for a TT application in Japan. I'm wondering whether my strategy was correct or I could have done something differently.

Apart from the usual documents (research, teaching, leadership statements), I was asked to fill a separate form comparing my publication metrics to 4 other researchers of similar career stage as me. I was also asked to self-evaluate whether I considered myself a top 10%, 30%, 50% or 70% researcher (this was a self-evaluation and hence naturally subjective). The University's priorities were stated as 1) number of publications in last 5 years, 2) number of top 10% cited publications in last 5 years. I had to compare my metrics to those of my peers at the same career stage. We had to obtain the data from Scopus.

I did well (top 95%) in 1) and about average (top 50%) for 2) comparing myself with the general pool of early-mid career-ish postdocs in my field (theoretical physics). In my application I chose 2 new assistant professors and 2 postdocs with same experience as me (~3 years post-PhD). I had published more than all of them, but was in the ~50th percentile on top-10% cited publications, in accordance with the general statistics above. I self-evaluated myself to be in the top-30% of researchers--we were just asked to state a number, without written justification.

I'm wondering if I took the right approach, or could have opted for a more optimal strategy in 1) choosing which researchers to compare myself to, and 2) whether I should have self-evaluated higher i.e. as a top-10%. For those with experience on hiring committees, if this form were part of your evaluation, what would you be looking for, given my accomplishments in 1) and 2)?

I acknowledge that failing to pass this screening may be independent of how I responded in the form (below), but I felt it was my strongest written application so far (and I did pass the written screening of my 3 prior Japanese faculty applications prior to this, submitted this year).

I am writing this after not passing the written application screening for a TT application in Japan. I'm wondering whether my strategy was correct or I could have done something differently.

Apart from the usual documents (research, teaching, leadership statements), I was asked to fill a separate form comparing my publication metrics to 4 other researchers of similar career stage as me. I was also asked to self-evaluate whether I considered myself a top 10%, 30%, 50% or 70% researcher (this was a self-evaluation and hence naturally subjective). The University's priorities were stated as 1) number of publications in last 5 years, 2) number of top 10% cited publications in last 5 years. I had to compare my metrics to those of my peers at the same career stage. We had to obtain the data from Scopus.

I did well (top 95%) in 1) and about average (top 50%) for 2) comparing myself with the general pool of early-mid career-ish postdocs in my field (theoretical physics). In my application I chose 2 new assistant professors and 2 postdocs with same experience as me (~3 years post-PhD). I had published more than all of them, but was in the ~50th percentile on top-10% cited publications, in accordance with the general statistics above. I self-evaluated myself to be in the top-30% of researchers--we were just asked to state a number, without written justification.

I'm wondering if I took the right approach, or could have opted for a more optimal strategy in 1) choosing which researchers to compare myself to, and 2) whether I should have self-evaluated higher i.e. as a top-10%. For those with experience on hiring committees, if this form were part of your evaluation, what would you be looking for, given my accomplishments in 1) and 2)?

I acknowledge that failing to pass this screening may be independent of how I responded in the form, but I felt it was my strongest written application so far (and I did pass the written screening of my 3 prior Japanese faculty applications prior to this, submitted this year).