Sources & Methodology
Our methodology begins with the claim that needs support, then selects the strongest appropriate source and records the limits that source places on the wording.
Published by PeptideSchool Editorial Desk · Published 2026-08-11 · Reviewed 2026-08-11
Source hierarchy
Primary peer-reviewed studies, trial registries, regulators, official scientific records, and established research databases are preferred when they directly support the statement. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, consensus documents, and authoritative institutional explanations can provide synthesis and context.
A secondary explanation may help a reader navigate a topic, but it does not replace the underlying study or official record when that source is available. Vendor pages, search snippets, forums, and community discussion can reveal vocabulary or questions; they are not used as proof of a scientific or regulatory claim.
From source to summary
Editors compare the source with the intended statement, noting design, population, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcomes, time frame, and uncertainty. The summary is written to the scope of that evidence rather than to the strongest possible headline.
Sources are linked so readers can verify the record directly. Citations are checked for relevance and availability, and pages include evidence limits when one source cannot answer the broader question a visitor may bring to the page.
Automation and AI-assisted work
Software and AI-assisted tools may support organization, search, drafting, consistency checks, or quality assurance. They do not create evidence, credentials, reviewers, quotations, or independent authority, and their output is not treated as a source.
Public claims must remain traceable to the cited record and product facts. PeptideSchool uses an institutional editorial byline until a real named contributor or reviewer has granted permission and their role can be represented accurately.
Freshness and review
Publication and review dates make the age of a page visible. A review may confirm that the explanation still reflects the available record, while a material new study, regulatory change, broken source, or substantiated correction can trigger an update.
Scientific pages are not promised to be exhaustive or current to the minute. Readers can report a missing source or possible error through the corrections channel, and urgent health decisions should never depend on a website update cycle.
Source selection framework
Research Source Taxonomy
Fourteen claim families map to a preferred source class, minimum record set, required context, explicit insufficiency boundary, and review trigger. The taxonomy helps editors and readers choose a defensible starting record without converting source type into an automatic quality score.
Technical taxonomy files (optional)
Most readers do not need these downloads. They are provided for structured review and reproducibility.
What it can do
Document why a claim starts with a molecular record, primary study, registry, regulator, metrology standard, reporting guideline, or claim-provenance record.
What it cannot do
Replace direct relevance review, score a study automatically, establish approval, infer a personal outcome, or turn commercial and community language into scientific evidence.
CC BY 4.0 · Published by PeptideSchool Editorial Desk · Educational content only. Not medical advice.