Editorial policy

Source hierarchy

Where a claim appears on this site, it is drawn from — in decreasing order of preference:

  1. Peer-reviewed primary research (animal studies, in vitro work, early-phase clinical trials).
  2. Peer-reviewed reviews and meta-analyses.
  3. Regulatory documents, patent filings, and pharmacopoeial monographs where relevant.
  4. Reputable secondary references (textbooks, established scientific databases).

Community writeups, forum posts, and marketing material are not cited as sources.

Language and framing

Dosing information

Dosing ranges are reported as they appear in the underlying literature — most commonly from animal studies, occasionally from small human trials, and rarely from Phase II or Phase III work. Reported ranges are not treatment recommendations and are not scaled or translated for human use.

Medical review

PeptideCodex is not medically reviewed. We do not employ physicians and do not represent our content as clinician-reviewed. We removed any "medically reviewed" framing deliberately, because we believe presenting research-literature summaries under a clinical-review badge is misleading.

Updates and corrections

Each profile carries a "last updated" date. When we substantially revise a page — adding a new citation, updating a reported range, changing a mechanism section — we bump that date and note what changed if the change alters a factual claim.

To report a correction, cite the relevant paper and describe the change requested. We prioritise citation-backed corrections.

Conflicts of interest

PeptideCodex is independent. We do not sell peptides. We do not accept sponsorship in exchange for editorial placement. Where any commercial relationship exists, we will disclose it on the relevant page.