Use numbers, not claims

A scientist is trained for years to distrust unsupported claims. That training does not turn off when they open LinkedIn.

You cannot imagine how many companies say their product offers "good reproducible results".

What is "good"?

When you say your platform is "good" or "better", a scientist thinks "better than what, by how much, measured how". If you cannot answer, they label your content as "marketing" (which they understand as the equivalent of "scam").

Now, say your platform increases transduction efficiency by 15% compared with conventional AAV9 vectors.

That is something specific, measurable and worth reading.

The lesson here is simple: every qualitative claim needs a quantitative anchor. You can say something is fast, efficient, or scalable, but only if a number follows close behind to prove it.

This is not about drowning your posts or website in data, but about respecting how a scientific reader evaluates information. They are trained to ask for evidence before belief. Give them the evidence first (not inside a gated PDF after navigating 3 pages), and the belief will follow on its own.

Talk to you soon,

Alejandra Carreira