Methodology

This page explains how PepGuide produces and maintains peptide research profiles. Our process is designed for accuracy, transparency, and reproducibility.

How We Source Information

Primary Sources

• Peer-reviewed journals indexed on PubMed/MEDLINE — the foundation of every profile
• ClinicalTrials.gov — for active and completed human trial data
• Regulatory databases — FDA, EMA, and other agencies for approval status and safety data

Secondary Sources (Clearly Labeled)

• Review articles and meta-analyses — used for context and consensus summaries
• Conference proceedings — noted as preliminary when cited
• Preprints — included only when highly relevant, always flagged as non-peer-reviewed

Sources We Do Not Use

• Manufacturer marketing materials
• Anecdotal reports or forum posts
• Social media content
• Vendor product descriptions

Citation Standards

Every factual claim in a PepGuide peptide profile must be supported by a citation. Our citation format:

[Author et al. (Year). Title. *Journal*. PMID: 12345678](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12345678/)

Requirements

• PMID linking: Every reference links directly to its PubMed entry
• DOI fallback: When a PMID is unavailable (rare), we use a DOI link via https://doi.org/
• No fabricated identifiers: We never generate fake PMIDs or DOIs. If we cannot locate a source, we do not cite it.
• Inline citations: Key claims in the body text link directly to PubMed for immediate verification
• Reference section: A numbered reference list at the bottom of each page provides full bibliographic details

Citation Integrity

• All PMIDs are verified against PubMed before publication
• Citation counts displayed on each page reflect the number of unique peer-reviewed sources
• We distinguish between primary research, reviews, and meta-analyses

How Pages Are Structured

Every peptide profile follows a consistent template:

This structure ensures readers can quickly find what they need and verify every claim.

How We Handle Conflicting Research

Peptide research frequently presents conflicting findings. Our approach:

1. Report both sides. When studies disagree, we present both findings with their respective citations.
2. Note study quality. We highlight differences in study design — RCTs carry more weight than case reports; human data outweighs animal models.
3. Identify limitations. Small sample sizes, single-author research groups, and lack of replication are noted explicitly.
4. Avoid premature conclusions. We use language like "suggests," "indicates," and "preliminary evidence" rather than definitive claims for early-stage research.
5. Update when resolved. When new research resolves a conflict, we update the profile accordingly.

Review Process

New Profiles

1. Literature search — Comprehensive PubMed search for the peptide name, synonyms, and CAS number
2. Source selection — Primary research papers, key reviews, and clinical trial data are identified
3. Drafting — Profile is written following our standard template
4. Citation verification — Every PMID and DOI is verified against the source database
5. Technical review — Mechanism of action and research summaries are checked for accuracy
6. Publication — Profile goes live with a "Last Updated" date

Existing Profiles

• Weekly: New publications are screened and integrated
• Quarterly: Full review of accuracy, completeness, and citation integrity
• On correction: Verified corrections are applied within 48 hours

How to Submit Corrections

If you identify an error in any PepGuide profile:

1. Specify the page and section containing the error
2. Describe the error — what is wrong and what should it say
3. Provide evidence — link to the PubMed entry or other authoritative source supporting the correction
4. Email [email protected]

We acknowledge all correction submissions and apply verified fixes promptly. The page's "Last Updated" date is refreshed when corrections are applied.