Editorial Policy

Editorial Policy

PeptideGuide is committed to accuracy, transparency, and editorial independence. This policy outlines how we research, write, review, and update our content.

Sources and Evidence Standards

All research profiles, comparisons, and mechanism descriptions on PeptideGuide are based on published, peer-reviewed scientific literature. Our primary sources include:

• Peer-reviewed journals indexed in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus
• Clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, EudraCT)
• Regulatory filings and approval documents (FDA, EMA)
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses where available

We do not cite forums, social media, manufacturer marketing materials, or anecdotal reports as evidence. Where we reference preclinical (animal or in vitro) data, we clearly label it as such.

Evidence Hierarchy

We categorise evidence by strength and clearly communicate the research stage for every claim:

1. Approved — regulatory approval for specific indications (strongest evidence)
2. Phase III — large-scale randomised controlled trials
3. Phase II — efficacy and dose-finding studies in target populations
4. Phase I — safety and pharmacokinetic studies in healthy volunteers
5. Preclinical — animal models or in vitro studies (weakest translational evidence)

We do not extrapolate preclinical findings to human outcomes. If a compound has only animal data, we state this explicitly and avoid implying clinical efficacy.

What We Do Not Cover

• Dosing protocols — we do not provide dosing recommendations for any compound
• Treatment advice — our content is not medical advice and should not be used to diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition
• Sourcing guidance — we do not recommend suppliers, vendors, or purchasing channels
• Personal experiences — we do not publish user testimonials or anecdotal reports

Editorial Independence

PeptideGuide operates independently. We have no financial relationships with peptide manufacturers, suppliers, or clinics. No company or individual can pay to influence our content, rankings, or comparisons.

If we ever introduce affiliate relationships, sponsored content, or advertising in the future, it will be clearly disclosed and will never influence editorial decisions.

Review and Update Process

Peptide research evolves rapidly. We review and update content on an ongoing basis:

• New trial results — profiles are updated when significant new clinical data is published
• Regulatory changes — approval status is updated when compounds receive new approvals or restrictions
• Safety signals — adverse event data from post-marketing surveillance or new trials is added promptly
• Reader feedback — corrections and suggestions from qualified readers are reviewed and incorporated when appropriate

All content is reviewed by at least one member of our editorial team before publication. Major updates are reviewed by a second editor.

Corrections

If you identify an error in any of our content — factual inaccuracy, outdated information, or misrepresented research — please contact us at editor@peptideguide.com. We take corrections seriously and will update content promptly when errors are confirmed.

Material corrections are noted at the top of affected pages. Minor copy edits and formatting changes are not individually noted.

Contact

Questions about our editorial process? Reach us at editor@peptideguide.com or via our contact page.