08 · Keep current
How to maintain a KOL research library without starting over
The short answer
Maintain a KOL research library by keeping identity and source records organized, reviewing changing facts before important decisions and reassessing fit for each new brief. Reuse reliable evidence, but do not assume that an old affiliation, activity summary or project recommendation is still current.
What you’ll take away
- Refresh changing facts at meaningful decision points
- Keep reusable professional evidence distinct from project-specific conclusions
- Record changes and open questions so the next team can continue the work
Putting this into practice? Create your KOL Luminary account or compare plans.
Separate the professional profile from the project assessment
A person's professional background can inform several projects, but the reason for selecting them depends on the brief. Keep reusable information such as identity, documented roles and research activity distinct from conclusions about a particular programme or audience.
When a new project begins, review the existing evidence against its requirements. A strong fit for one educational session does not automatically imply a strong fit for an advisory discussion or a different disease area. Reuse the research foundation, then make a fresh project judgment.
Use decision points to trigger a refresh
There is no single refresh interval that suits every field or project. Match the review effort to how quickly the information changes and how important it is to the next decision. A historical publication can remain useful while a current affiliation needs another check.
Swipe the table to see all columns.
| Trigger | What to revisit |
|---|---|
| A new project brief | Topic, geography and activity relevance |
| Before a selection discussion | Current role and the strongest supporting claims |
| Before planned outreach | Current professional details and open questions |
| New congress or research activity | Relevant additions and duplicate records |
| A conflicting source appears | The claim affected and its source history |
| A long period without review | Changing facts and the scope of the earlier search |
Record what changed and why it matters
A refresh should leave the next researcher with a clear understanding of the update. Note the relevant source, the date checked and whether the finding changes the profile or simply confirms an existing fact. No change can still be a useful result when a decision depends on currency.
Distinguish a correction from a genuine change over time. If a publication belonged to a different person, correct the attribution and revisit any affected totals. If the KOL moved institutions, preserve historical activities while updating the current affiliation.
Keep unresolved discrepancies visible in the working research. A new source does not automatically supersede an old one merely because it was found later. Compare what each source actually says and whether it is appropriate for the claim being updated.
Prevent duplicate people and duplicate activity
Search the existing library before creating a new profile. Check name variations, institutional history and other identifying information. Separate people who share similar names, and do not merge records simply because their specialties overlap.
Apply the same discipline to publications and congress activity. A paper may appear in several databases, and a meeting contribution may appear on a programme page and a biography. Keep the supporting sources, but count the underlying activity according to your defined method.
This matters because duplicate records can distort later summaries and make one person appear more active than another. A tidy library improves both the efficiency of future research and the fairness of project comparisons.
Give the library a clear owner and review process
Assign responsibility for resolving corrections, approving important profile changes and keeping project decisions understandable. A shared library works best when team members know which information they can reuse and when another check is needed.
Keep internal relationship history and project feedback distinct from public professional evidence. They have different purposes, access needs and sharing implications. Use the organization's approved process for sensitive business information and for requests to correct or delete records.
For recurring projects, review a small set of meaningful indicators: profiles awaiting key checks, repeated identity issues and whether recent shortlists relied on outdated information. Avoid measuring success only by the number of profiles in the library.
A simple workflow for the next project
Start with the new brief, find potentially relevant existing profiles and identify the facts that could change the decision. Refresh those facts, add any needed new candidates and compare everyone against the same current criteria.
Record the new selection rationale and prepare the deliverable from the reviewed shortlist. This preserves the value of earlier work while making the current recommendation understandable on its own. The next team should be able to see what was reused, what was updated and what still needs attention.
Common questions
How often should a KOL profile be refreshed?
Set the frequency around the information and the decision. Recheck changing professional facts before selection or outreach, and review relevant new activity when the project requires it. Avoid assuming a fixed interval makes every claim current.
Can I reuse the same shortlist for a new project?
Use it as a starting point, then reassess the candidates against the new brief and current evidence. The old selection rationale may no longer apply even when the underlying professional record remains useful.
For product, billing and security questions, visit the KOL Luminary FAQ.