How PeptiDex Researches and Cites Content

Every peptide profile, stack page, and long-form article begins with a literature review against peer-reviewed primary sources. Mechanism statements, dosing references, half-life values, side-effect incidences, and clinical-trial outcomes are traceable to indexed publications — never to forum posts, vendor marketing pages, or AI-generated summaries.

Acceptable primary sources include PubMed/MEDLINE-indexed journals, ClinicalTrials.gov registry entries, FDA drug-approval documents, EMA assessment reports, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Studies whose methodology or sample size cannot be evaluated, or that are published in non-indexed venues, are not used as primary support for factual claims.

Recency. Where two sources contradict, the more recent peer-reviewed publication is given more weight, with systematic reviews and meta-analyses preferred over individual trials. Studies older than ten years are cited only when they remain the foundational reference for a given mechanism, or are still the largest available trial in their domain.

Evidence grading. Each cited study is tagged with a transparent evidence level — Clinical Trial, Animal Study, In-Vitro, Case Report, or Review/Meta-Analysis — so a reader can see at a glance whether a claim is supported by human data or extrapolated from preclinical work. Extrapolations from animal data to human outcomes are explicitly flagged.

Direct linking. Every cited study includes a direct PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, or DOI link. If a paper sits behind a paywall, the abstract URL is provided and the paywall noted. The goal is for any reader to verify any claim in two clicks.

Established medical publications run a multi-step review: a clinician reads each draft for clinical accuracy, an independent fact-checker re-verifies every citation, and an editor signs off. PeptiDex does not have that. There is one researcher, and that researcher is not a clinician.

What that means in practice:

• Content is best treated as a starting point for further reading, not as a final clinical reference.
• Every numeric or mechanistic claim is linked to its primary source, so readers can independently judge whether the in-text summary fairly represents the source.
• Errors will happen. The corrections page is the public record of every fix, retraction, and material clarification.
• Decisions that involve actual peptide use need to go through a licensed physician. The site cannot stand in for one.

PeptiDex is partly supported by affiliate relationships with research-chemical vendors — when a reader clicks through to a vendor and makes a purchase, the site may receive a commission. Pages that contain affiliate links display an inline affiliate disclosure at the point the link appears.

Vendor independence. No vendor pays for placement, ranking, or favorable editorial coverage. Vendor reviews and price comparisons are produced independently, without contact with vendor sales channels. If a vendor relationship existed at the time content was written — sponsorship, sample provision, paid travel — that relationship is disclosed inline.

No clinical relationships. The researcher does not hold equity in any peptide manufacturer or vendor, is not a paid speaker for any party, and is not party to any consulting arrangement that could compromise objectivity. If that ever changes, this page and the about page will be updated and the change recorded in the corrections log.

Six-month re-review.Every published peptide profile, stack page, and evergreen article is re-read against the current literature at least every six months. If the page still reflects the available evidence, the “reviewed” date is bumped. If the literature has shifted, the page is revised, and the change is logged.

Out-of-cycle triggers. Some events trigger an immediate update outside the six-month cycle: an FDA scheduling change, a study retraction, a major safety signal in published pharmacovigilance data, or a clinical- trial result that materially changes the safety or efficacy picture for a covered compound.

Date stamps.Every page renders three visible dates: published, last modified, and last reviewed. These are also embedded in the page's structured-data so readers and search engines can assess freshness.

Errors will happen. The standard is that they get corrected quickly, transparently, and visibly — not silently overwritten.

Reporting an error. Anyone can report an inaccuracy through the contact form on the About page. Reports are triaged within one business day.

How a correction is logged. If an error is confirmed, the page is corrected within 48 hours. The original incorrect statement is preserved in the corrections log alongside the corrected statement and the date of the change. Pages with active corrections show a small banner pointing to the log entry.

Retracted citations. If a study cited on PeptiDex is retracted from its journal, the citation is removed within one business day, and any claim that depended on it is either supported by an alternative source or revised. The retraction event is recorded in the corrections log.

No silent edits.Substantive claims are not silently revised. If a page's clinical conclusion changes — for example, a previous warning is moderated based on new data — the change is logged, dated, and explained.