Editorial and Review Standards

How we research

We build every guide from primary sources first: peer-reviewed studies, systematic reviews, and official regulatory documents such as FDA advisory committee materials and anti-doping rules. We read the actual research rather than repeating what other sites claim about it. When we describe evidence, we are careful to separate animal studies from human studies, and preliminary or single-source findings from well-replicated ones, because that distinction is usually the whole story with peptides.

How we review content

Draft guides are checked against the primary literature and current regulatory status before and after publication. Our review approach draws on input from qualified professionals across pharmacy, clinical medicine, nutrition, and fitness, and we are actively expanding that professional review network. Where a specific guide has been reviewed by a named professional, that reviewer and their credential will be listed on the article itself. Where it has not, we do not pretend otherwise. We would rather under-claim than overstate who has checked our work.

Our editorial independence

Peptide Navigator earns revenue from educational ebooks, affiliate links, and advertising. Our conclusions are not for sale. We do not weaken an honest assessment to move a product, we do not accept payment to promote a specific peptide or vendor, and commercial relationships never determine whether we call the evidence strong or weak. If a popular, monetizable peptide has thin evidence, we say so plainly.

Corrections and updates

Peptide science and regulation move quickly, so our content is dated and updated as things change. Each guide shows when it was published and, where relevant, when it was last updated. If you believe something is inaccurate or out of date, tell us through the contact page and we will review it promptly and correct it if warranted.

The rules we never break

These are hard lines on every piece of content we publish:

• No doses, no reconstitution math, no injection technique, and no cycling or tapering numbers.
• No sourcing, vendor names, or purchase links for unapproved peptides.
• No claim that anything is proven beyond what the actual evidence supports, and honest caveats when it does not.
• Every practical health decision is routed to a licensed clinician who knows the reader's history.