One-time peer review vs. editorial board service — do they carry the same weight?

Both count under "judging the work of others," but they're not identical kinds of evidence, and it's worth understanding why before you decide where to put your effort. A single completed peer review is real evidence — but it's one data point, and by itself it says less about sustained standing in the field than a pattern does. Editorial board service, or judging the same competition across multiple cycles, shows something a one-off review doesn't: that the field keeps coming back to you for evaluative judgment, not just that you did it once. That doesn't mean a single review is worthless — it's genuine evidence, and several single reviews across different venues can build the same kind of pattern that one ongoing role would show. The distinction matters more for deciding how much weight one piece of evidence is doing than for deciding whether to include it at all. A file with one lone peer-review confirmation and nothing else under this criterion is weaker than the same file with three or four, even if none of them individually is an ongoing appointment.