Editorial policy

This policy applies to every page on Peptigraph: peptide profiles, dosing and side-effect pages, calculators and converters, comparisons, the legal tracker and our guides. It sets out how we decide what to publish, how we check it and how we keep money away from the content. Our methodology describes the mechanics in more detail.

Peptigraph is an educational reference. It is not a medical service, a pharmacy or a seller, and nothing on it is medical advice.

Every number and every factual claim on a data page must trace to a source we can cite: a clinical trial publication or registry entry, a drug label, a regulator’s notice or a peer-reviewed study. The source is listed on the page, numbered, with a link or PMID wherever one exists.

• We never invent studies, numbers, prices, PMIDs or test results.
• When a value is unknown or not yet verified, the page shows a visible “pending” marker instead of an estimate. A gap is more useful to a reader than a plausible guess.
• We do not use vendor product pages, untraceable certificates of analysis or unlabelled forum posts as evidence.
• Facts about legal status are dated, because they change. The date tells you how current the statement is.

Claims about what a peptide does carry one of five evidence labels: human randomised trial, human observational, animal, in vitro or anecdotal. The wording follows the label, so “seen in rats” is never written as “shown to work”. User reports are shown only as anecdotal, with the number of reports and their dates, and never support a dosing figure. The labels are explained in the methodology.

• No dose recommendations. We report the doses used in trials or set by approved labels, with their source. We do not tell readers what dose to take.
• Calculators do arithmetic only. They convert a dose someone else has set into a volume and a syringe reading, and they show their working.
• Risks come first. Side effects, warnings and legal status appear near the top of a page, not after the benefits.
• No miracle claims. We do not describe any peptide as safe, natural, proven or equivalent to an approved drug unless a cited source says exactly that.
• Investigational drugs are described as investigational. We cover them through their trials and regulatory status, and we never point readers to unapproved sources.
• We write in plain English, define technical terms once and use the generic name alongside any brand name.

Many of our pages are generated from a structured database of sourced facts, which is how we keep numbers consistent across hundreds of pages. We may use language models to draft readable text from those stored facts. A model is never a source: it cannot add a fact, a number or a citation that is not already in the database with its source.

Every page is checked by a person before it is published, and generated pages are held to the same standards as hand-written ones. Calculators run on code with automated tests, not on a model.

Before a page is published, every quoted figure is checked automatically against its cached source, then our physician reviewer checks doses, units, warnings and legal status. The reviewer’s name and the review date appear at the top of the page, and the reviewer’s profile lists their credentials and the pages they have signed off.

Pages that have not passed review, or that are less than 80% complete, may still be reachable on the site but are marked noindex and left out of our sitemaps, so they do not appear in search results.

• Calculators, dosing pages, peptide profiles and guides never link to a seller of peptides or supplies, and we do not say where to buy research peptides.
• No company can pay to be listed, reviewed, ranked or described more favourably.
• The only place we may earn a referral fee is the telehealth comparison. It carries a disclosure above the first provider, uses sponsored links and follows a published sort order.
• Any advertising is clearly labelled and has no influence on what we publish.

Writers, editors and reviewers declare financial relationships with peptide manufacturers, sellers, compounding pharmacies and telehealth companies. Reviewer declarations are shown on their profiles. Nobody reviews or edits a page about a company they have a relationship with, and reviewer pay does not depend on traffic or on referral revenue.

When we describe a company, we stick to facts we can source and date, such as public regulatory actions or published third-party results, and we link to the original. We do not publish accusations, and we do not restate a third party’s test result as our own finding. A company that believes something we published is wrong can ask for a correction through the same process as any reader.

When we get something wrong, we fix it, date the fix and say what changed. We never silently change a number. Corrections to published facts are listed in the corrections log; dosing and calculator errors are treated as urgent.

“Last reviewed” on a page means our medical reviewer checked the whole page against its sources on that date. “Updated” means its content changed. Our sitemaps carry the real review date, never the date the site was rebuilt.