Editorial standards & sourcing policy

Who writes this content

The research library and laboratory blog are written and maintained by the Peptide Pilots Scientific Content Team — staff with laboratory and analytical-chemistry backgrounds who work from primary literature rather than secondary summaries. Content is written to describe what has been published about a molecule, not to advocate for its use.

No page on this site is written by, reviewed by, or intended to substitute for a clinician. Peptide Pilots supplies reagents for laboratory research use only and does not provide medical advice.

How sources are selected and cited

Every factual claim about a compound traces to a numbered reference listed on the same page, with authors, publication year, source and a resolvable DOI, PubMed or trial-registry link. Where a claim rests on a single study, that is stated in the sentence rather than left to the reference list.

• Peer-reviewed primary research and registered clinical trials are preferred over reviews, and reviews over preprints.
• Vendor literature, forum reports and anecdotal accounts are not used as evidence for any mechanistic or outcome claim.
• Where the strongest available evidence is a rodent model or an in-vitro system, the page says so in those words.

Evidence tiering

Mechanistic sections separate findings into in-vitro, animal and human tiers, and never present a tier-one result as if it predicted a tier-three outcome. Concentrations, models and endpoints are reported alongside results so a reader can judge transferability rather than take the conclusion on trust.

Each research entry carries an explicit limitations section describing what the literature does not establish. That section is written before the summary, not appended to soften it.

Review cadence and dating

Every research entry and article displays a published date and a last-reviewed date, and both are carried in the page's structured data. Entries are re-checked against new literature on a rolling basis; when a substantive claim changes, the reviewed date moves and the change is reflected in the text rather than made silently.

Corrections

If you identify a misread study, a broken citation or a claim that overstates its source, write to us through the contact details on our legal information page. Substantive corrections are made to the page itself and the review date is updated.

Commercial independence

Research content is written independently of the catalogue. A compound is covered because there is published literature worth summarising, and coverage is not conditional on the compound being stocked. Research pages contain no pricing, dosing or administration guidance, and product pages carry no efficacy claims.