Policy

Reviewer credential policy

How Peptide Authority verifies reviewer credentials, what specialties review what content, and what review does — and does not — certify.

Last reviewed: 2026-05-20

Who reviews what

Different content categories are reviewed by reviewers with relevant expertise. The mapping is deliberately narrow — a UK regulatory reviewer is not asked to opine on clinical applicability, and a clinical reviewer is not asked to opine on the wording of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.

UK regulatory and legal content — reviewed by a UK regulatory professional or solicitor with experience in medicines law (HMR 2012, MHRA enforcement, ASA / CAP advertising codes).
Clinical / pharmacological content — reviewed by a GMC-registered doctor, GPhC-registered pharmacist, or equivalent clinician working in the relevant therapy area.
Evidence-grading and study-quality content — reviewed by someone with formal training in evidence appraisal (systematic review methodology, GRADE, EBM).
Sport and anti-doping content — reviewed against the current WADA Code and the UKAD position; reviewer experience in athlete support is preferred where available.

How we verify credentials

Before a reviewer is added to the editorial board, we verify:

Current registration with the relevant UK regulator (GMC, GPhC, SRA, BPS, HCPC, or equivalent overseas body).
Stated specialty experience via published work, employer confirmation, or specialty register where applicable.
The reviewer's acceptance of our conflict of interest policy and disclosure of any financial or research relationships with peptide retailers, prescribers, or manufacturers.

What review certifies

A reviewer credit on a page means:

The reviewer has read the page end-to-end at the date listed.
The reviewer believes the regulatory framing and evidence summary are accurate at the time of review.
The reviewer has flagged anything they disagreed with for editorial revision before publication.

What review does not certify

That any compound mentioned is safe or effective for any individual reader. Clinical applicability requires a real consultation with a real clinician who knows the individual's history.
That the content remains accurate after the review date. UK regulation evolves; trial data is updated; we re-review on schedule but a static reviewer credit does not freeze time.
A personal recommendation of any supplier, clinic, prescriber, or retailer. Reviewers do not endorse commercial entities.
An equivalent of NICE accreditation, NHS endorsement, or any formal regulatory approval. We are an independent education publisher, not an NHS or regulatory body.

Reviewer turnover

When a reviewer leaves the editorial board, pages they previously reviewed remain attributed to them at the review date listed, but their name is removed from the editorial board page within 14 days. Future reviews of the same content are credited to the next reviewer.

Who reviews what

UK regulatory and legal content — reviewed by a UK regulatory professional or solicitor with experience in medicines law (HMR 2012, MHRA enforcement, ASA / CAP advertising codes).

Clinical / pharmacological content — reviewed by a GMC-registered doctor, GPhC-registered pharmacist, or equivalent clinician working in the relevant therapy area.

Evidence-grading and study-quality content — reviewed by someone with formal training in evidence appraisal (systematic review methodology, GRADE, EBM).

Sport and anti-doping content — reviewed against the current WADA Code and the UKAD position; reviewer experience in athlete support is preferred where available.

How we verify credentials

Before a reviewer is added to the editorial board, we verify:

Current registration with the relevant UK regulator (GMC, GPhC, SRA, BPS, HCPC, or equivalent overseas body).

Stated specialty experience via published work, employer confirmation, or specialty register where applicable.

The reviewer's acceptance of our conflict of interest policy and disclosure of any financial or research relationships with peptide retailers, prescribers, or manufacturers.

What review does not certify

That any compound mentioned is safe or effective for any individual reader. Clinical applicability requires a real consultation with a real clinician who knows the individual's history.

That the content remains accurate after the review date. UK regulation evolves; trial data is updated; we re-review on schedule but a static reviewer credit does not freeze time.

A personal recommendation of any supplier, clinic, prescriber, or retailer. Reviewers do not endorse commercial entities.

An equivalent of NICE accreditation, NHS endorsement, or any formal regulatory approval. We are an independent education publisher, not an NHS or regulatory body.