Editorial Policy

Editorial scope

The Peptide Therapy Index covers clinical and preclinical research on peptide therapies — compounds where the primary therapeutic interest derives from their peptide structure and mechanism of action. Coverage spans peer-reviewed human clinical trials, controlled animal studies, in vitro mechanistic research, and systematic reviews where those reviews synthesise primary literature on peptide compounds.

The index does not publish general supplement advice, speculative future-of-peptides content, product comparisons, dosing guides written without direct grounding in published trial protocols, or content that cannot be anchored to a citable primary or secondary source. The subject is the science. The audience is assumed to already understand what a peptide is.

Evidence quality classification

Every article on this index carries one of four evidence quality badges, assigned before any editorial decision about content framing is made. These badges are not decorative — they are the interpretive frame through which all claims in the article should be read.

RCT Evidence — The research base for this article includes at least one randomised controlled trial in human subjects evaluating the compound or mechanism described. This is the strongest evidentiary category available for clinical questions. RCT Evidence does not mean the case is closed: trial quality, sample size, blinding adequacy, and replication status all matter and are assessed in the article.

Preclinical — The available evidence for the claims in this article derives from animal models or in vitro cell studies. No controlled human trial data exists at the time of publication. Preclinical findings are informative about mechanism and biological plausibility. They cannot establish clinical efficacy or safety in humans. Articles in this category state explicitly where the human evidence gap lies.

Case Series — The available human data consists of case reports or small observational series without a control group. These findings establish clinical plausibility and can signal research directions, but cannot control for natural disease course, regression to the mean, or placebo effects. Articles in this category identify the confounds the data cannot exclude.

Review / Meta — The article synthesises existing studies rather than reporting on a single primary study. This category applies to systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and narrative reviews when the index's own analysis is drawing on and summarising a body of literature. The underlying studies in a Review / Meta article may span multiple evidence levels, which the article will distinguish.

Badge assignment is made by the editorial team before drafting and is not revised downward to make an article appear more authoritative than the evidence supports. If new trials elevate the evidence level for a topic, the article is updated and the revision date recorded.

Source standards

Primary literature is the starting point. Where a claim is specific — a reported effect size, a dose threshold, a mechanistic pathway — the citation should link to the study that produced that claim, not to a summary of it.

The index prioritises MEDLINE-indexed sources: PubMed-indexed journals, trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register), and established institutional databases. Where the most relevant source on a topic is not MEDLINE-indexed — a recent preprint, a conference abstract, a non-indexed regional journal — it may be cited if its relevance is clear, but it is flagged as such in the article. Preprints are cited with an explicit notice that the work has not undergone peer review. Retracted papers are not cited as supporting evidence; if a retracted paper is referenced, it is identified as retracted.

Secondary sources — review papers, textbook chapters, institutional guidance documents — are cited when they synthesise a body of primary research accurately. They do not substitute for primary citation when a specific finding is being attributed.

Anonymous editorial

Articles on this index carry no named author. The attribution line reads: "Peptide Therapy Index editorial — independent research summary, no commercial affiliations."

This is a deliberate structural choice. The credibility of a research index rests on the quality and sourcing of its analysis, not on the professional biography of whoever compiled it. Named authorship in commercial content creates reputational incentives that can subtly distort framing. Anonymous editorial under a consistent institutional standard removes that vector. The research speaks; the index is the instrument.

This does not mean the editorial process is unaccountable. It means accountability runs to the published evidence base, not to individual reputation. Errors are corrected on the record.

Conflict-of-interest policy

The Peptide Therapy Index accepts no funding, sponsorship, or payment from peptide manufacturers, compounding pharmacies, supplement retailers, or any commercial entity with an interest in the compounds documented here. There is no affiliate revenue. There is no advertising. No content is commissioned, reviewed, or approved by any commercial party prior to publication.

Editorial decisions — what to cover, how to classify evidence, what to conclude — are made entirely by the editorial team on the basis of the published research. This independence is not a marketing claim; it is the operational condition under which the index can function as a credible reference. Once commercial interests influence editorial framing, the index becomes indistinguishable from the promotional content that already dominates this space.

Corrections and retractions

When a study cited in an article is retracted, the citation is updated to identify the retraction and the article is reassessed. If the retracted study was central to the article's claims, those claims are revised or removed. If the retracted study was peripheral, the article is updated to note the retraction with no further revision required. In either case, the article's revision date reflects the correction.

When a cited finding is substantially contradicted by a new study — a subsequent trial with a larger sample or more rigorous design reporting different results — the article is updated to present both findings and assess where the weight of evidence currently sits. The index does not delete the earlier characterisation; it updates the record in place.

Factual errors in the index's own analysis — mischaracterisation of a study design, incorrect transcription of a result, logical errors in evidence assessment — are corrected as soon as they are identified. The nature of the correction is noted in the article.

Correction requests may be submitted to editorial@peptidetherapyindex.com with a reference to the specific claim and the contradicting source.

Article freshness and year suffixes

Article titles on this index include a year reference — for example, "2026" — appended to the title. This is an explicit freshness signal, not an SEO convention. Peptide research moves: trial results are published, safety profiles are updated, earlier preclinical findings are tested in humans and either confirmed or falsified. An article titled for a specific year commits the editorial team to reviewing that article at the year's turn and updating it to reflect the current state of the literature.

Where an article's core evidence base is unchanged at review, the year is advanced and the review date is recorded. Where significant new research exists, the article is revised substantively before the year is advanced. Articles are not re-dated without editorial review.