Editorial Standards

How we research, write, review, and update content. These standards apply to every page on Peptide Authority — peptide profiles, legal guides, safety pages, blog posts, comparisons, and claim-review pages.

Core principles

Evidence-graded, not opinion-graded

Every claim is anchored to a specific evidence level using our public grading system (A–E plus R for regulatory risk and S for sport risk). See the grading methodology.

Primary sources first

We cite MHRA, NICE, NHS, EMA, peer-reviewed journals, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WADA Prohibited List. Forum posts, sales pages, and influencer content are never cited as evidence.

Cautious medical language

We avoid words like 'heals', 'cures', 'reverses', 'guaranteed', 'proven', 'safe', and 'no side effects' unless they are accurate and supported. We prefer 'investigated', 'studied', 'preliminary human evidence suggests', and 'evidence is limited'.

Safety over reach

We do not publish content that helps readers source, dose, reconstitute, inject, or cycle unlicensed peptides. We do publish content that helps readers identify counterfeits and ask better questions of clinicians.

Editorial firewall

Our one disclosed affiliate relationship (with a research peptide retailer) does not influence content. Affiliate-funded editorial is not permitted. See the conflict of interest policy.

Versioned, reviewable, correctable

Every page shows a last-reviewed date and a corrections link. Reader-submitted corrections are triaged and applied or rejected with reasoning.

Evidence hierarchy

When we say a claim has “limited human evidence” or is “animal-only”, this is the ladder we are referencing. The same hierarchy underpins our public evidence grading system (A–E, plus R and S).

Level 1 — Strongest
Human randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of RCTs
Preferred when available. We give most weight to large, well-conducted RCTs and Cochrane-style systematic reviews.
Level 2 — Strong
Human observational studies (cohort, case-control)
Useful for safety signals and real-world effects, with awareness of confounding.
Level 3 — Moderate
Case series and case reports
Hypothesis-generating only. Not sufficient to claim efficacy or safety.
Level 4 — Weak
Animal studies
Useful for mechanism. Frequently fail to translate to humans. We label animal-only evidence clearly.
Level 5 — Weakest
In-vitro / cell-line studies and theory
Mechanism only. Not evidence of clinical benefit in humans. Often misrepresented in marketing.

Review process

1
Research and source capture
Authors collect primary sources (MHRA / NICE / NHS / EMA / WADA / PubMed). Source quality is checked against our rules: primary regulator > systematic review > RCT > observational > preclinical > theory.
2
Drafting with claim grading
Drafts include explicit evidence grades (A–E) and regulatory / sport risk badges (R, S) where relevant. Risky verbs are flagged automatically by our medical-claims lint script.
3
Editorial review
An editor reviews for accuracy, balance, claim creep, missing disclaimers, citation drift, and tone. The review is documented in version history.
4
Regulatory & safety pass
A separate reviewer checks UK regulatory framing (POM status, MHRA warnings, NICE guidance, fake-pen risk) and athlete anti-doping framing where relevant.
5
Publication and lastmod
Page goes live with a last-reviewed date and a corrections submission route.
6
Scheduled re-review
Each page has a re-review date (default 12 months) and is re-checked sooner when MHRA updates, NICE technology appraisals, or WADA list changes are published.

Source quality rules

Tier 1 (preferred): MHRA, NICE, NHS, EMA, FDA, peer-reviewed Cochrane / BMJ / NEJM / Lancet / JAMA-grade journals, ClinicalTrials.gov registry entries, WADA Prohibited List.
Tier 2 (acceptable with context): Other peer-reviewed journals indexed in PubMed; specialist regulator guidance from comparable jurisdictions; major peer-reviewed textbooks.
Tier 3 (mechanism only): Animal and in-vitro studies, labelled explicitly as such.
Never cited as evidence: Supplier product pages, clinic marketing pages, social media, anecdote, forum threads, influencer content, retracted papers, predatory journals.

Risky-claim word list

We maintain a versioned list of words and phrases that trigger an automatic review because they tend to overclaim benefit, downplay risk, or imply regulatory status that does not exist. The script that scans our content for these patterns lives at scripts/lint-medical-claims.ts and the latest report at content-audit-report.md.

Examples: heals, cures, reverses, repairs, guaranteed, proven, 100%, no side effects, completely safe, risk-free, buy peptides, where to buy, best place, click chart, dosage protocol, cycle, stack (when used as instruction), and similar.

Editorial firewall & conflicts of interest

Peptide Authority discloses one commercial relationship: an affiliate link to a single research peptide retailer. That relationship does not influence which peptides we cover, how we grade evidence, or how we report safety and legal risk. We have no clinic relationships, no paid medical reviewers, and no sponsored content. Read the full disclosure in our conflict of interest policy.

Last reviewed: 15 May 2026

Next review due: 15 May 2027

Spotted an error or something out of date? Send a correction.

Core principles

Evidence-graded, not opinion-graded

Every claim is anchored to a specific evidence level using our public grading system (A–E plus R for regulatory risk and S for sport risk). See the grading methodology.

Primary sources first

We cite MHRA, NICE, NHS, EMA, peer-reviewed journals, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WADA Prohibited List. Forum posts, sales pages, and influencer content are never cited as evidence.

Cautious medical language

Safety over reach

Editorial firewall

Our one disclosed affiliate relationship (with a research peptide retailer) does not influence content. Affiliate-funded editorial is not permitted. See the conflict of interest policy.

Versioned, reviewable, correctable

Every page shows a last-reviewed date and a corrections link. Reader-submitted corrections are triaged and applied or rejected with reasoning.

Evidence hierarchy

Level 1 — Strongest

Human randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of RCTs

Preferred when available. We give most weight to large, well-conducted RCTs and Cochrane-style systematic reviews.

Level 2 — Strong

Human observational studies (cohort, case-control)

Useful for safety signals and real-world effects, with awareness of confounding.

Level 3 — Moderate

Case series and case reports

Hypothesis-generating only. Not sufficient to claim efficacy or safety.

Level 4 — Weak

Animal studies

Useful for mechanism. Frequently fail to translate to humans. We label animal-only evidence clearly.

Level 5 — Weakest

In-vitro / cell-line studies and theory

Mechanism only. Not evidence of clinical benefit in humans. Often misrepresented in marketing.

Review process

Research and source capture

Authors collect primary sources (MHRA / NICE / NHS / EMA / WADA / PubMed). Source quality is checked against our rules: primary regulator > systematic review > RCT > observational > preclinical > theory.

Drafting with claim grading

Drafts include explicit evidence grades (A–E) and regulatory / sport risk badges (R, S) where relevant. Risky verbs are flagged automatically by our medical-claims lint script.

Editorial review

An editor reviews for accuracy, balance, claim creep, missing disclaimers, citation drift, and tone. The review is documented in version history.

Regulatory & safety pass

A separate reviewer checks UK regulatory framing (POM status, MHRA warnings, NICE guidance, fake-pen risk) and athlete anti-doping framing where relevant.

Publication and lastmod

Page goes live with a last-reviewed date and a corrections submission route.

Scheduled re-review

Each page has a re-review date (default 12 months) and is re-checked sooner when MHRA updates, NICE technology appraisals, or WADA list changes are published.

Source quality rules

Tier 1 (preferred): MHRA, NICE, NHS, EMA, FDA, peer-reviewed Cochrane / BMJ / NEJM / Lancet / JAMA-grade journals, ClinicalTrials.gov registry entries, WADA Prohibited List.

Tier 2 (acceptable with context): Other peer-reviewed journals indexed in PubMed; specialist regulator guidance from comparable jurisdictions; major peer-reviewed textbooks.

Tier 3 (mechanism only): Animal and in-vitro studies, labelled explicitly as such.

Never cited as evidence: Supplier product pages, clinic marketing pages, social media, anecdote, forum threads, influencer content, retracted papers, predatory journals.

Risky-claim word list

Editorial firewall & conflicts of interest