Hi!
I agree with many of the comments already made.
- I would suggest that you forget about claiming memberships. Even the "Society of Industry leaders" is an organisation that you join by yourself, filling a form on the web, and which is clearly oriented toward getting consultant work through a company called Vista. Their website shows that clearly. Most of the FAQs are about renumeration of the consultant work you can do, and the way to join includes statements like:
The biography portion of the application is the most important section. Your biography is where you should explain your industry knowledge, expertise and experience in detail. When our clients express an interest in discussing a certain topic, we search our Member's profiles using keywords. Vista Research is able to match SIL Members with clients in potential consultations when the biography is robust and detailed. Also, please remember to include your companies and products of expertise when you complete your application.
- Citations are so-so... Even a one-year old paper, if really good, gets quickly quite a few citations. One paper with 9 and three others with 3 to 4 citations each is not a lot. So the authorship wil have to be really well supported, because the "objective" exhibits you can give are weak.
- The value of your researh in your field will therefore a bit more difficult to prove and the reference letters better be really pointed to your contribution and very clear!
- Now, as many said, the third criterion you are left with is review of the work of others.
Nine papers reviewed for 4 journals is not that "extraordinary".
I was invited as an external expert to review a governmental policy is much better, especially if you can get a letter explaining why you were selected in the review committee, who the other reviewers were, and how your contribution in the review process has been appreciated. I got myself such a letter from the NSF when I reviewed a major US national lab in my field, and I am sure it helped for that criterion. I just used those reviews (I did others for international labs) and not claimed anything on the journal reviewing side, though I reviewed tens of papers for the best journals in my field: I have plenty of colleagues who did that too, so was not really "extraordinary". I just mentionned it and actually explained that I was not using it as evidence.
Always happy to help more if needed.
Chris
-