A myth I believed: that you need to be the sole author to claim original contributions

Nearly excluded some of my strongest work from my original-contributions argument because it was collaborative, not solo — assumed a shared contribution would read as weaker or somehow not really mine. That assumption was wrong, and I want to correct it for anyone carrying the same one. What actually matters is your specific, identifiable role in the contribution, not whether you worked alone. Collaborative work is the norm in most fields, and a reviewer generally understands that — what needs to be clear is precisely what your individual contribution was within the collaborative effort, documented through your co-authors' or collaborators' own account of your specific role, not just your say-so. I ended up including a reference letter from a co-author specifically describing my individual role in a collaborative project, which read as more credible than if I'd simply asserted my role myself. Collaborative work, well-documented for your specific contribution, is genuinely strong evidence — it doesn't need to be solo work to count.