We focus on Product & Technology Evaluation. For this purposes we are developing a scoring methodology. It’s especially suitable for biomedical start-ups, but it can be used as a new evaluation system for broader areas. Some of the assessing points are the following:
1. Approach founded on evedence-based science.
2. References of their work in reviewed reputable journals and other professional literature.
3. White papers.
4. Background and competencies of the author/team.
5. Company presentation, values, and credibility.
6. Track record free from being caught with misleading/deceiving information.
7. Quality of their web presentation.
8. Quality of their presentation’s language and grammar.
9. Principle verification of their approach through already existing, sufficiently similar, at least partial approaches, already verified in the practice.
10. No cover of the basic technical principles of operation due to proprietary information.
11. Disclosure of key quantifications through appropriate graphs.
12. Internal technical and overall consistency.
13. A balance between current scientific knowledge and their business priority due to which start-ups may often exaggerate.
14. Safety, and possible side effects.
15. Possible role of placebo or suggestion on the effect.
Structured scoring methodology is based on the points above. Here’s an expanded framework to standardize evaluation with weighted scoring:
| Category (Max %) | Description | Score (%) |
| 1. Scientific Foundation (20%) | ||
| – Approach Founded on Scientific Facts (5%) | Clear alignment with established scientific principles. | |
| – Peer-Reviewed References (10%) and/or | References in reputable journals and scientific literature. | |
| – White Papers (5%) | Quality and presence of scientific white papers. | |
| 2. Team & Company Credibility (20%) | ||
| – Background and Competency of Author/Team (10%) | Relevant expertise and experience of founders and key team members. | |
| – Company Values & Credibility (5%) | Transparency in values, mission, and industry reputation. | |
| – Track Record (5%) | History of credibility; no misleading or deceptive practices. | |
| 3. Technical Transparency & Intellectual Property (20%) | ||
| – Quantitative Evidence (10%) | Presence of data, graphs, and technical metrics supporting claims. | |
| – Principle Verification (5%) | Evidence of validation through existing, verified approaches. | |
| – Disclosure Limitations Due to IP (5%) | Reasonable disclosure on core technical principles without compromising IP. | |
| 4. Internal Consistency & Scientific Balance (15%) | ||
| – Technical & Consistency (10%) | Logical consistency in technical documentation and claims. | |
| – Exaggeration Gap (5%) | Minimal exaggerations in claims versus current scientific understanding. | |
| 5. Safety & Effectiveness (15%) | ||
| – Placebo/Expectation Effect (10%) | Consideration of placebo or suggestion effects in outcomes. | |
| – Safety & Side Effects (5%) | Clear documentation on safety and potential risks. | |
| 6. Presentation & Communication Quality (10%) | ||
| – Web Presentation (5%) | Clarity, quality, and professionalism of website. | |
| – Language & Grammar Quality (5%) | Professionalism in language, grammar, and overall presentation. |