Content Standards
Peptide Directory HQ maintains rigorous editorial standards to ensure the accuracy, objectivity, and usefulness of our content.
Source Requirements
We prioritize information from:
- Peer-reviewed scientific journals
- Official regulatory agency publications
- Established academic institutions
- Recognized scientific databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, etc.)
We avoid relying on:
- Marketing materials from product vendors
- Unverified anecdotal reports
- Non-peer-reviewed preprints (without clear notation)
- Sources with undisclosed conflicts of interest
Language Standards
Our content uses conservative, factual language:
- We describe research contexts, not therapeutic outcomes
- We use "studied for," "investigated in," not "treats" or "cures"
- We acknowledge uncertainty where it exists
- We distinguish between preclinical and clinical evidence
- We avoid sensationalism or hyperbole
Dosage Information Policy
We have a strict policy on dosage information:
- We do not provide dosage recommendations or protocols
- When discussing dosages in research, we always note they are experimental parameters, not recommendations
- We include disclaimers directing readers to professional guidance
- We explain why standardized dosing does not exist for research peptides
Update Process
Content is reviewed and updated regularly:
- Major pages are reviewed at least quarterly
- New research is incorporated as it becomes available
- Corrections are made promptly when errors are identified
- Last-updated dates are displayed on all pages
Correction Policy
When errors are discovered:
- Minor errors (typos, formatting) are corrected immediately
- Factual errors are corrected with a note explaining the change
- Significant corrections are noted prominently
- We welcome correction reports from readers
Independence
Our editorial content is independent of:
- Peptide manufacturers or vendors
- Commercial interests
- Advertising or sponsorship influence
We do not accept payment for favorable coverage or content.