07 · Present
How to present a KOL shortlist that clients can act on
The short answer
Present a KOL shortlist by connecting the project brief to a clear recommendation for each candidate. Summarize relevant experience, show the evidence behind project fit and identify the next decision. Use a consistent profile structure, remove repeated claims and keep detailed research available for review.
What you’ll take away
- Explain the recommendation before listing the evidence
- Give each profile section a distinct job
- Make the handoff explicit: decision, owner and next checks
Putting this into practice? Create your KOL Luminary account or compare plans.
Lead with the decision the client needs to make
A client reviewing a shortlist needs to know why these people were selected and what happens next. Begin with the project purpose, the criteria used and the proposed roles or contributions. Avoid opening with a long description of the research process when the immediate question is whom to consider.
State whether the deck supports exploration, further research or a final selection discussion. Include the review date and the scope of the evidence. That context prevents a preliminary shortlist from being mistaken for a fully confirmed engagement plan.
Give every profile section a distinct purpose
Repetition makes a profile feel longer without making it more informative. Assign each section a job and move information to the place where it best answers the reader's question.
Swipe the table to see all columns.
| Section | What the reader should learn |
|---|---|
| Why this KOL fits | The connection between the person and this brief |
| Relevant experience | A plain-language synthesis of the experience behind the recommendation |
| Clinical focus | Distinct clinical areas without repeated aliases |
| Research | The scope of publication activity and relevant research areas |
| Congress activity | The breadth and nature of documented professional event activity |
| Project-fit breakdown | What the score components mean and what supports them |
| Supporting evidence | The important facts and sources needed to assess the recommendation |
Write experience summaries that add insight
A useful experience summary connects several supported facts. It might explain that the person has repeated professional speaking experience and a research interest relevant to the planned discussion. It should add depth to the recommendation instead of repeating the same claim in different words.
Make the summary proportionate to the record. If there are several documented activities, do not describe the person only through one isolated talk. If the source record is narrow, do not inflate it into extensive experience. The wording should reflect what the evidence actually establishes.
Use consistent capitalization and concise bullets. Remove duplicated disease names, unexplained abbreviations and internal scoring language. The reader should not have to understand your research system to understand the recommendation.
Explain scores without turning the deck into a methods manual
Show the component name, points earned and points available, then explain the result in everyday language. A match-to-brief component should help the reader understand which requested areas are supported and what would strengthen the match.
A final example of a perfect project fit can provide useful context. Describe the evidence that would meet the brief fully and explain how that reference relates to the actual components. Keep the example clearly illustrative; it is not a promise that a real candidate with full marks is available.
Remove internal instructions and implementation details from the client narrative. Retain the underlying research and methods where reviewers can inspect them when needed, but make the deck focus on evidence and decisions.
Run a practical quality check before sharing
Review the deck as a reader, not only as the researcher who built it. Compare narrative claims with counts, check names and current affiliations, open important links and inspect the exported file at normal presentation size. Look for text that wraps awkwardly or makes a key distinction hard to see.
Check that the chosen export view is appropriate for the audience. Internal notes and relationship information should be handled through the team's approved sharing process. An editable PowerPoint helps with final presentation changes, but editing can also disconnect a claim from its supporting evidence; recheck substantive changes.
Finish with the requested decision, the owner and the next checks. A useful handoff might ask stakeholders to select candidates for further review, confirm missing expertise or approve the shortlist for the next internal stage.
- Each recommendation is tied to the brief
- Experience summaries and activity counts agree
- No duplicated claims or unexplained jargon remain
- Sources and current roles have been checked
- The next decision and responsible owner are clear
Common questions
Should a KOL presentation include every publication?
Usually the main profile is more useful when it summarizes the scope and relevance of research. Keep detailed publication evidence available for review, and include individual items only when they are necessary to a specific decision.
Should I send PDF or PowerPoint?
Use PDF for a stable reading copy and editable PowerPoint when the team needs to adapt the presentation. In either case, inspect the final file and ensure that edits preserve the meaning of the evidence.
For product, billing and security questions, visit the KOL Luminary FAQ.