03 · Verify
How to verify a KOL profile: identity, evidence and current roles
The short answer
Verify a KOL profile by confirming the person's identity, checking important claims against relevant professional sources and distinguishing current facts from historical activity. Review the exact role described, retain source links and dates, and keep unresolved questions separate from confirmed findings.
What you’ll take away
- Confirm identity before combining records
- Match each claim to a source that actually supports it
- Distinguish missing information from evidence of absence
Putting this into practice? Create your KOL Luminary account or compare plans.
Start with the person, not the publication count
Names alone are not reliable identifiers. Different people can share surnames and initials, and one person can publish under several name variations. Compare institution, specialty, geography, co-authors and the context of the work before merging records into a profile.
An ORCID iD can help distinguish researchers and connect their work across systems. Treat it as a useful identity reference, while still inspecting the relevant record and the source of a claim. An identifier does not by itself establish every current role, clinical interest or project qualification.
When identity remains ambiguous, hold the activity separately until you can resolve it. Adding a doubtful paper to a total can affect later comparisons and make the profile look stronger for the wrong reason.
Check claims at the right level of detail
Open the underlying source and read the relevant context. Search snippets, summaries and copied biographies can omit dates or blur the distinction between different roles. A source should support the statement you plan to make, not merely mention the person.
Swipe the table to see all columns.
| Proposed claim | Evidence to inspect | Common mistake |
|---|---|---|
| Works at a named institution | Current institutional or professional profile | Using an old article affiliation as current |
| Has research in a topic | Relevant publication records with identity checked | Counting unrelated papers |
| Was an invited speaker | Programme identifying the speaking role | Treating abstract authorship as a talk |
| Was involved in a trial | Record naming the person and role | Attributing a site's involvement to everyone there |
| Has a particular clinical focus | Professional profile or other direct evidence | Inferring practice solely from one publication |
What should you do when sources disagree?
First check whether the apparent conflict is simply a change over time. An older congress biography may correctly describe an earlier appointment. Preserve the historical activity, but use a suitably current source for the current affiliation.
If two recent sources disagree, record the discrepancy and its effect on the decision. Seek a more direct source or leave the claim unresolved. Do not silently choose whichever version makes the candidate look more suitable.
A useful internal note states the competing claims, source dates, the question to resolve and the next step. The client-facing summary should contain only what can be supported clearly, with any decision-critical uncertainty expressed in plain language.
Make publication and congress counts interpretable
Decide what you are counting before reporting a total. Publications found in a search, topic-relevant publications and all career publications are different measures. Record the source coverage and period, remove duplicate records and avoid implying completeness unless the research supports it.
For congress activity, distinguish events from sessions and speaking from other roles. A person may hold several roles at one event. A repeated programme entry should not become another engagement, and a congress record should not automatically become an invited presentation.
Use counts to support a richer description of experience. Explain the subjects and roles that matter to the project rather than leaving the reader to infer expertise from a number alone.
Use a short final review before recommending a candidate
Focus the final check on claims that could change the recommendation. Review the current affiliation, the strongest reasons for project fit and any essential condition. Make sure the source is accessible and that the profile has not carried forward an outdated assumption.
Verification is a research step, not confirmation of availability or permission to engage someone. Those questions belong in the later engagement process. A well-checked profile should make that next process easier by identifying what is already known and what still needs direct confirmation.
- Identity is consistent across the records used
- Current and historical roles are clearly distinguished
- Important statements have supporting source links
- Counts have a defined scope and duplicates are removed
- Open questions have an owner and a next step
Common questions
Does no public evidence mean the KOL has no experience?
No. It means the research did not establish that experience from the sources checked. Record the gap accurately and decide whether further research or direct confirmation is needed.
How recent should a source be?
It depends on the claim. Historical activity can remain relevant, but a current appointment or availability requires a current check. Set the evidence period around the project and explain it consistently.
For product, billing and security questions, visit the KOL Luminary FAQ.