He proposed creating "meta-experts," or similar bodies, to help determine who truly qualifies as an expert.

The idea needs more scrutiny. But the fact that it surfaced points to an urgent reality in policymaking. Officials rely on expert advice but struggle to identify the right people.

There is no shortage of people labeled experts nor of those who claim the title. What is missing is a reliable way to identify real expertise. This matters. In many cases, choosing the right or wrong expert directly affects the quality of policy decisions.

When citizens need professional advice, they can rely on formal standards such as licenses, degrees or certification.

Policymakers, who set those standards, do not have equivalent benchmarks to guide their own choices.

When an issue is standardized, decision-makers can use established criteria to select experts.

When it is new and lacks clear benchmarks, they must rely on individuals to define those standards. Selecting an expert then becomes an expert judgment in itself.

This creates a paradox: Those who need experts must have expert-level judgment to identify them. When that capacity falls short, they turn to visible signals such as credentials, experience or media presence. This opens the door for "image experts" to displace those with real ability.

Three men engaged in a panel discussion at a professional conference. Illustration photo by Pexels/Reza Tavakoli

So who is an expert?

An expert has deep knowledge in a field and can offer reliable judgments that help others make decisions. This can include formally trained specialists, academic researchers or practitioners with hard-earned experience. This diversity makes selection harder.

An expert is not the person who knows the most. It is the person who can make sound judgments under complexity and uncertainty. Knowledge can be learned and experience accumulated, but it is judgment that sets true experts apart.

It means framing the problem correctly, seeing trade-offs, and accepting the consequences of a choice. When evaluation fails to capture this, the market rewards persuasive voices over those who improve decisions.

This problem grows when visible criteria crowd out harder-to-measure qualities. For instance, degrees, years of experience and media exposure are easy to see, while the core ability, such as framing problems and making sound judgments, is much harder to assess.

The issue deepens when marketing substitutes for competence.

Persuasive speakers appear more often and gain trust more easily. Those who deliver results but stay out of the spotlight are overlooked. The market then rewards the appearance of expertise over real capability.

The real risk is not a lack of experts, but the use of the wrong ones. The cost goes beyond wasted consulting fees. It can lead to misguided strategies, lost opportunities, or decisions that seem reasonable yet prove flawed.

There is no perfect formula for identifying experts. Still, a few basic questions can help.

First, do they ask questions before answering? Superficial thinkers respond at once. Capable ones clarify the problem first.

Second, do they acknowledge limits? Absolute certainty should raise doubt. Those who admit uncertainty often understand more.

Third, do they see trade-offs? Every decision carries benefits and costs. If everything looks like a win-win, the issue may have been oversimplified.

Fourth, do they connect advice to real outcomes? Experts do not only say what should be done. They understand what will happen if it is done.

Fifth, do they update their views when new data appears? Real experts revise their thinking while "fake" ones tend to hold their ground to protect their reputation.

Finally, do they leave a professional trace? True experts leave evidence in their field, like recognized publications, or work, models and decisions with real-world value. These traces must be verifiable and acknowledged by relevant communities. Without them, it is hard to claim expertise. With them, the claim still needs validation.

This problem will not disappear, and no "meta-expert" will always be available to make the right call.

The starting point lies in changing how decisions are evaluated.

When decision-makers ask the right questions and focus on judgment rather than surface signals, the role of expertise falls into place. An expert's value then lies not in how often they are invited, but in how well their judgment helps others understand the problem before making a decision.

If evaluation does not change, the market will keep favoring those who look like experts over those who actually are.

*Tran Thi Quang Hong earned her law doctorate degree at Monash University in the U.S. and participated in several training courses at Harvard Law School. She now works at the Parliament of Victoria and is a member of Vietnam-Australia Scholars and Experts Association.