Reactions

Selecting start-ups to watchIn the preface to 10 Start-Ups to Watch, you state: “C&EN had no trouble this year amassing a fresh list of hundreds of interesting start-ups.” Then you go on to state: “We combed through these companies—gathered from reader submissions, databases of venture-backed firms, and our own coverage—to settle on this year’s 10 Start-Ups to Watch.”Knowing that you began with a list of hundreds of companies, it begs the question, What process/criteria do you use to get to the final 10?Since ACS members are scientists, and scientists always document their methods, we deserve to know the process by which you execute this selection. Is it systematic? If yes, then what are the criteria? If no, then why is it not systematic, and how much credence should we attach to the results?Apart from the need for you to document your process, I have another reason that I offer this critique. I feel a certain negativity about the idea of top picks. If there are hundreds of companies, then there must be at least dozens that deserve equal visibility with the chosen 10. This doesn’t seem fair. At least, if you document your process, then readers can get some sense of how 10 companies became visible and the (probably) close distribution of the ones that remain invisible.Deanna Morrow HallStone Mountain, GeorgiaEditor’s note:We acknowledge we do not have a systematic method for choosing our 10 Start-Ups to Watch. As mentioned, we comb through reader submissions, our own coverage, and databases of