The Power List 2022 – You Asked… and We Answered
The Ophthalmologist editorial team answers your questions about The Power List selection process
Aleksandra Jones | | Discussion
Along with your nominations for this year’s Power List, we also asked you to give feedback, send suggestions, and ask any questions you might have about the way the List comes together. Here, you can read our responses to your comments.
We hope you find them helpful, but please feel free to leave a comment below or send an email to [email protected] if you have any further questions.
“Please advertise the nomination process broadly; there are so many great candidates.”
We strive to improve each year, and we already have some great plans for our 2023 promotional campaign – but please keep helping us! Share the list and the nomination form on your social media channels, in your department or company newsletter, and mention it to your colleagues in the field. The more people who know about the list, the more comprehensive and representative the list will be!
“The nomination procedure could be changed. There could be a list proposed by The Ophthalmologist and readers could simply vote for those names.”
This proposition is interesting, as it could include all previous frontrunners. However, it would be a major change to our process and open to manipulation. We want to keep the process as fair and as open to everyone as possible.
“Who is on your panel? Is your panel diverse in itself? What is their ethnicity, gender? Are there criteria to ensure reduction of bias in selection?”
The judging panel has evolved from just a few names eight years ago to 20 people this year, half of whom are women. In 2022, they hailed from nine countries on five continents, and represented all major sub-specialties – and both clinical practice and research. I also specifically ask the panel to take equal opportunities and diversity into account, and I know they actively consider these issues.
“The implication that some people should be ranked above or below others is spurious. Perhaps have a handful who receive special recognition and then the larger group all together (maybe divided by subspecialty). Also, after five years on your list, specialists should get moved to a permanent place. Finally, ‘young stars’ may be a more important list since their work – likely less well known – may be deserving to be disseminated more widely. You could impact the field in addition to simply commenting on it.”
“Perhaps you can put a cap on how many times a person can get onto the list as some names have appeared many times over the past years. For example, you can feature on the list once every three years or those that have appeared thrice over the past years get into a category called The Hall of Fame.”
Thank you for these comments. We aim to highlight those who received the highest rankings by our esteemed judging panel; however, the ‘Hall of Fame’ idea is intriguing and we will certainly discuss it! Our nomination process is indiscriminate of appearances on previous lists, as we want it to be open, honest, and a fair reflection of who our readers feel inspired by in a given year. Though many names have appeared more than once, it is wonderful to see so many new names added year on year. We also completely agree that the work of the rising stars in the field should be recognized. And that’s why we have published Top 40 Under 40 Power and Rising Stars lists in the past, and we will almost certainly do so again in the future.
“Thank you for the List! I suggest one vote per subscriber.”
An interesting suggestion – though we receive nominations rather than “votes” –however, we think it is fair to give individuals the opportunity to nominate as many deserving individuals as they wish.
“Please consider nominees on the merits of their contributions and not as some popularity contest because the person convinces enough people to vote for them. Too often, your list looks like a popularity vote and not one that focuses on the merits of a person’s contribution to our industry.”
When it comes to the number of nominations for one name, it is quite clear when one visitor has tried to game the system. But rest assured that multiple nominations are discarded in any case and not presented to the judges.
“As a Chinese person, I wish there could be more exposure for Chinese doctors. I have witnessed a lot of talented people in China who dedicate their life to improving the ophthalmology field.”
We wholeheartedly agree with you! The good news is that the numbers are slowly growing, with one person from China and Hong Kong featuring in 2018, two in 2020, and three in 2022. Again, please feel free to share the list – and especially the nomination process – as widely as possible!
“Please, include specialists from the world of pediatric ophthalmology. Highlighting the work done for our children can only help.”
I hope that you will be pleased to see more pediatric ophthalmologists on the List this year, but, of course, many more could be featured and we encourage you to nominate those in pediatrics for future lists!
“Maybe in the future, you can publish the Power List by geographic location. It may be even better to reveal power influence in each territory.”
One of our sister titles, The Analytical Scientist, has used this approach in the past, and we have certainly been considering it. It’s a strong possibility, so watch this space!
“It’s a great list; I would love to see more objective measures of why someone is listed.”
“Please list the metrics on what the Power List supposedly measures, such as influence, academic contributions, sales, and education. I can imagine the Power List could be separated into categories; industry influence (key opinion leaders), education, and research.”
Though the concept of objective measures is great in theory, in practice it is extremely difficult; every career is different, with nominees engaging in so many different worthy pursuits. However, we will certainly consider separating the List into categories in the future.
“200 words is very little when you have so much to say about a person!”
We realize this is not ideal, but our judges review up to 500 individuals and, given that they are experts in the field, they are likely to know the nominee’s main accomplishments and achievements.