Editorial Standards

We prioritize primary research, peer-reviewed literature, recognized public-health and regulatory sources, and established scientific databases. When a source is uncertain, preliminary, or disputed, that context belongs with the claim.

Source choice should match the statement being made. A regulatory status belongs to the regulator; trial results belong to the trial report or registry; a molecular definition belongs to an appropriate scientific database or primary paper. Secondary sources can provide context but do not replace the strongest available record.

We distinguish where possible between laboratory, animal, and human research. A citation is not a recommendation, and early or limited evidence is not presented as settled fact.

Summaries separate observed findings from interpretation and note practical limits such as sample size, comparator, duration, endpoint choice, and study design. A statistically significant result is not automatically a large, durable, clinically relevant, or generalizable effect.

Pages display publication or review information so readers can judge freshness. A page may be reviewed without changing its conclusions, or updated when a new source materially changes the explanation.

Readers can report potential factual or source issues at contact@peptideschool.org. Material corrections are made to the relevant page rather than silently changing the record. Wording preferences that do not affect factual accuracy are evaluated separately from correction requests.

PeptideSchool does not sell the substances discussed in its educational content. We do not accept an advertiser’s claim as editorial proof and we do not publish personalized treatment or use instructions.

Commercial availability, popularity, community discussion, or repetition across websites is not treated as evidence. Educational coverage does not imply endorsement, approval, safety, effectiveness, or suitability for any person.