Editorial standards
How we check facts
Follows public health-information guidance: list your sources, date your reviews, and make corrections easy.
Sources we accept
Research summaries cite published papers, including primary studies and clearly labeled reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov records, FDA and EMA labels, and official agency pages. PubMed indexing helps locate a paper; it is not an endorsement of its findings. Each citation is tagged with its study type (human trial, animal study, lab study, review) so you can judge how strong the evidence is. If we can't find a published source, we say so. Adamax is one example.
How citations are checked
Every cited link is checked automatically: it must be a direct paper link, not a search page. A separate checker visits each link and reports dead pages or unexpected redirects before we publish. Trial figures are compared against the paper's abstract.
Review schedule
Every compound, comparison and glossary page shows when it was last reviewed and when it's due for its next review, at least every 6 months. The whole catalog was last reviewed on October 21, 2026.
Catalog labels and vial sizes
Vial sizes and blend compositions describe the presentations recorded in our catalog, including the supplied reference guide and supplier listings. They are not standardized clinical formulations, proof of vial contents, or evidence that a combination has been studied. A composition checked against a reference guide is not independently laboratory-certified. Product identity, purity, solubility and storage must be checked against the specific supplier documentation.
What we don't publish
Research summaries and head-to-head articles report what studies measured. They are not usage instructions. Existing protocol figures are reference content, shown next to a research-use-only notice; not every schedule has been traced to a primary clinical study. A citation about a component does not validate a commercial blend, its schedule, or human safety.
Use of AI
AI tools help draft text and search the literature. Automated checks cover citation formatting, internal links and calculation consistency; they do not prove that a scientific claim is correct. Source-by-source editorial checks are a separate process. Unresolved claims should be labeled as uncertain rather than treated as established findings.
Editorial independence
Research summaries, citations and calculator math are never paid for or changed by a supplier. Medvinci Research is our featured supplier and helped provide the reconstitution demonstration video; supplier links may be commercial and are marked as such. Batch figures shown on supplier cards come from public lab certificates indexed by PeptideBenchmark, and a certificate covers only the lot tested.
Found a mistake?
Every page has a "Report an error" link that opens an email with the page already named. You can also write to hello@peptijournal.com. Please include a source if you have one.
Research use only. Full disclaimer.