Editorial Policy

Source hierarchy

For any scientific claim about a peptide, mechanism, trial outcome, or pharmacokinetic parameter, we draw on the following sources in approximate descending order of weight:

1. Regulatory filings (FDA labels, EMA EPAR, equivalents).
2. Peer-reviewed systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
3. Peer-reviewed pivotal Phase III randomized controlled trials.
4. Peer-reviewed earlier-phase or mechanistic primary research.
5. Registered clinical-trial records (ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register).
6. Conference abstracts and preprints (clearly marked as such, never cited alone).

Anecdotal, vendor-published, or commercial claims are not accepted as sources for scientific statements. They may be discussed in a meta-commentary capacity (e.g., “some vendor websites assert X; the primary literature does not support this”).

Evidence tier annotation

Every citation in our reference lists is tagged with one of four evidence tiers:

• Validated: peer-reviewed Phase II+ human trial, systematic review, or regulatory dossier; replicated where applicable.
• Pending review: single-study finding, preprint, or under active regulatory review.
• Preclinical: animal model, in-vitro, or cell-line evidence, not yet translated to human data.
• Anecdotal: case report, registry signal, or uncontrolled observation.

The tier badge is visible next to every citation. See Methodology for the precise criteria.

Writing and review process

Each article goes through a documented pipeline:

1. An outline is drafted from the source list and target audience map.
2. The draft is written against numbered citations. No claim is left unsourced.
3. A second editor performs a cross-check against the original sources.
4. Once recruited, a named subject-matter reviewer (peptide pharmacologist, clinical pharmacist, endocrinologist, or equivalent) is asked to flag inaccuracies or missing evidence. The reviewer’s name is added to the article header upon their approval.
5. The article is published with a “Last reviewed” date. The date is refreshed on quarterly review.

Articles in the launch batch may be published before a named expert reviewer has been recruited. The article header lists the reviewer once that step is complete.

Update cadence

Pillar pages and peptide hubs are reviewed at minimum quarterly. Trial spotlights are updated when new data are reported (interim analyses, journal publications, regulatory decisions). Foundational guides are reviewed annually for changes in scientific consensus.

Conflicts of interest

The Peptides Research Hub Editorial Team and any named reviewers must disclose financial interests in companies developing or selling peptides covered on the site. Disclosures will appear on author and reviewer pages. We do not accept paid placements, sponsored articles, or affiliate revenue from peptide products.