Editorial Policy

Updated: September 8, 2026

Peptide Dossier is published by Gangotri46 Ventures LLC, with content attributed to the Peptide Dossier Editorial Team. These are the standards for our guides, comparisons and peptide profiles. Verification of the existing library is ongoing; this policy is not a claim that every page already meets every standard.

Sourcing standards

Choose sources that directly support the specific claim, prioritizing original evidence and authoritative documentation:

Peer-reviewed studies (with a DOI or PubMed link) and systematic reviews
Clinical trial records on ClinicalTrials.gov
FDA drug labels, approvals, and official communications
NIH, NLM, and other government health resources
Manufacturer prescribing information and official documentation

A dose, efficacy figure, adverse-event rate or regulatory claim should link to the specific study, product document or official record that supports it. Citations belong beside the relevant claim, with a reference list where useful. Search snippets, another vendor's blog and our own pages are not substitutes for that underlying evidence.

Evidence levels

Human clinical evidence: identify the study design, population, formulation, route, duration and outcome. Distinguish randomized trials from observational studies and case reports.
Preclinical evidence: identify the species or laboratory model. An animal or cell result does not establish a human treatment benefit or dose.
Practitioner experience and anecdotes: attribute observations to the original speaker or report and link to it. They can identify questions worth studying but do not establish efficacy rates or definitive safety.
Mechanistic reasoning: identify a proposed explanation as a hypothesis, not a demonstrated clinical result.
Regulatory and product information: state the relevant jurisdiction, product and date. Approval status, prescribing rules and scientific evidence are different questions.

Emerging research and attributed experience remain part of our coverage. The strength of the wording should match the strength of the evidence, without turning uncertainty into either a promise or a blanket dismissal.

Verification

Our current review works through the library in risk-prioritized batches. Confirmed errors are corrected across visible text, examples, FAQs, structured data and tool outputs together. Where a claim cannot yet be substantiated, it should be qualified and identified for follow-up, rather than presented as settled fact. Arithmetic tests check calculations; they do not establish an appropriate treatment protocol. An editorial or software check is not clinical review.

Medical review

Peptide Dossier content is educational and is not, by default, individually reviewed by a licensed clinician. Where a specific page has been reviewed by a licensed professional, that review, the reviewer, their credential, and the review date are stated on the page itself. In the absence of such a line, a page has not been clinician-reviewed and should be read as a sourced educational summary, not medical advice. See our Medical Disclaimer.

Use of AI

We use AI tools to help draft, organize and maintain content. AI can produce incorrect claims or references, so its output is not a source of scientific authority. The ongoing verification program checks underlying sources and calculations; it has not yet completed the entire existing library.

Updates

An “Updated” date records an editorial change, not a clinician's review or a guarantee that every source is current. Material corrections should carry a specific note explaining what changed. A build or deployment alone is not a content update. A medical-review date is used only for an actual named professional's review.

Corrections

Report errors to hello@peptidedossier.com with the page URL, specific claim and supporting source if available. Reports should be assessed against the source; confirmed errors take priority according to their potential impact. Correction notes should identify the change without implying that unrelated claims were reviewed.

Rankings and provider mentions

Rankings reflect editorial judgment. We receive no compensation for referrals or links. Ranking pages should explain the comparison criteria, such as service scope, eligibility, pricing terms and evidence available, and date time-sensitive facts. A comparison is not first-hand testing unless the page describes actual testing. Favorable mentions must remain supportable. See our Advertising Disclosure.