On this page
Why scientists distrust supplier copy
A scientist reads a supplier website the way they read a paper. They look for the data, check the conditions behind it and ask whether they could reproduce it. When they find adjectives instead of data, they assume there is none and stop reading.
They do not want harder text either. The GOV.UK style guidance asks for plain English for specialists too. It cites research on legal language where 80 % of people preferred sentences in clear English, and the more complex the issue, the stronger that preference. The more educated and specialist the reader, the more they preferred plain English. Specialists can follow complex language, but they would rather not read it if there is an alternative.
Every claim with its evidence beside it
Whenever the site says a system does something well, the data and where it comes from should sit right next to it. Seamless scale-up says nothing. A credible sentence says which working volume you moved from and to, with which cell line and which scale-up criterion you kept constant, such as kLa or power per volume.
Then add the link. If the figure comes from an application note, link to it. If it comes from a paper, give the DOI. If it is an internal test, say so and describe the method. For a CDMO, experience in monoclonal antibodies carries less weight than saying which steps you run, at what scale and on which equipment.
- The value with its unit and, where relevant, the spread.
- The conditions, such as medium, cell line, working volume, temperature or days in culture.
- What it is compared with, if you say it is better or faster.
- Where the full protocol can be read, whether an application note, a paper or a test report.
If I write more plainly, will scientists think it is not technical enough?
Not if the data is there. GOV.UK cites research on legal documents where the more educated and specialist the reader, the more they preferred plain English. Copy looks non-technical when it gives no figures and no test conditions, whatever the sentence length.
The words that cost you trust
Revolutionary, state-of-the-art, market-leading or unmatched cannot be checked and sound like a catalogue. GOV.UK advises avoiding buzzwords and jargon because they are vague and leave the text empty, and asks writers to be open and specific. If you remove the adjective and the sentence loses no information, it was not needed.
Technical terms are a different matter. TFF, single-use or GMP are your readers' own words. GOV.UK says specialist terms are fine when needed, as long as you explain them the first time, and that you should use the words people search for. Some search for tangential flow filtration, others for TFF. Use both.
David Monje, founder of crida studio, led marketing at TECNIC Bioprocess Solutions for four and a half years. On 1 November 2026, the TECNIC page «¿Qué es un sistema TFF y cómo funciona?» (What is a TFF system and how does it work?) was the first organic result on Google Spain for filtración tangencial. That was work David led there, and there is no guarantee it will happen again.
Want us to check which claims on your website have no evidence behind them? Leave your details and we will tell you which pages we would start with.
Review my websiteHow to write units and numbers
A badly written unit stands out at once and suggests nobody from the lab checked the text. The NIST checklist, from the US national metrology institute, sets out the basic rules of the International System of Units. Leave a space between the number and the symbol, even when the value is used as an adjective. Symbols take no plural and no full stop, and abbreviations such as cc or sec are not used.
In a range, each value carries its unit, or both go in brackets with the unit at the end. English uses a decimal point, while Spanish and Catalan use a comma. Pick one format per language and use it the same way on the website and in the PDFs. The NIST checklist is meant for reviewing scientific manuscripts. If the label or an approved document already says 2-8 °C, copy it exactly on the website so everything matches.
| Write | Avoid | Why |
|---|---|---|
| A 50 L bioreactor | A 50L or 50-L bioreactor | A space goes between number and symbol |
| 200 L | 200 Ls | Symbols take no plural |
| 20 °C to 30 °C | 20 to 30 °C | It must be clear which unit each value takes |
| (37.0 ± 0.5) °C | 37.0 ± 0.5 °C | Value and tolerance share the unit |
| 5 mL | 5 cc | cc is not an SI symbol |
Can we publish data before we have an application note?
Yes, as long as you say where it comes from. Explain that it is an internal test, the conditions and the result. If you do not have enough data yet, saying nothing beats a figure with no context. Once the application note exists, link to it from the same sentence.
Who wrote it and how it was tested
Google's guidance on helpful content suggests asking who created each page, how and why. It asks whether authorship is clear, whether pages carry a byline where readers would expect one and whether it leads to more about the author. On an equipment maker's site, that means signing application notes with the name and role of the application specialist or process engineer.
It also helps to explain how the test was run. Google uses product reviews as an example, where it helps to say how many products were tested, what the results were and how. And never invent authors. Google says fabricating creator profiles, with AI-generated headshots, made-up names or false credentials, is deception and makes a page untrustworthy.
Who should sign the technical content on our website?
The person who can answer questions about it, usually the application specialist, the process engineer or the product manager. Google recommends bylines where readers would expect them, leading to more information about the author, such as a page with their background and experience.
How to review a page before it goes live
Before publishing, have someone from the lab or the applications team read the text, not just marketing. Ask them to flag every sentence they could not defend if a customer asked for the data. Those sentences either get their evidence or get cut. GOV.UK also recommends splitting sentences over 25 words and using the active voice.
