Methodology

This page explains how PepGuide produces and maintains peptide research profiles. It describes the target standard for new and materially revised profiles. Older research guides may not yet meet every requirement and should be assessed by the sources they link.

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

Commercial catalog data may appear in a separate availability component, but it is never used to support research claims, dosing information, safety statements, or source selection.

Editorial and Commercial Separation

PepGuide and Rylume are operated by the same team. The integration is intentionally narrow:

• Scientific pages are sourced and reviewed under the standards on this page.
• Rylume contributes only a live, read-only availability signal and links to its own batch documentation.
• Prices, promotions, and sales copy are excluded from PepGuide's data feed.
• A product being in or out of stock does not affect whether PepGuide creates, updates, or ranks a profile.
• Every Rylume recommendation identifies the commercial relationship directly on the peptide page.

Citation Standards

Material scientific, safety, and regulatory claims in a reviewed PepGuide profile should be supported by a traceable citation. Our preferred citation format is:

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

Requirements

• PMID linking: Use a direct PubMed entry when one exists
• DOI fallback: When a PMID is unavailable, 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 If we cannot locate a source, we do not cite it.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

• PMIDs and DOIs should be verified against their source record during substantive review
• Citation counts on database-backed profiles reflect their structured reference records
• 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

• Evidence updates: New publications are prioritized by significance and safety relevance
• Editorial audits: Profiles are reviewed according to age, traffic, known gaps, and correction reports
• Corrections: Reports are triaged by severity, then verified against authoritative sources

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]

Verified material corrections update the page and its review date.