Editorial Team & Review Process
How we research, write, and maintain 46 compound profiles and 139+ cited studies.
46
Compound profiles
139+
Cited studies
85+
Min quality score
6
Scoring dimensions
Who we are
Peptide Nerds is an independent editorial team focused on evidence-based peptide education. We are not affiliated with any peptide manufacturer, pharmacy, or supplier. Our revenue comes from newsletter sponsorships and affiliate partnerships, which are always clearly disclosed.
We do not sell peptides. We do not provide medical advice. We compile, analyze, and present published research so readers can have informed conversations with their healthcare providers.
Research methodology
Every compound profile begins with primary literature review. Our process:
- PubMed search: We start with peer-reviewed studies indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews are weighted most heavily.
- FDA documentation: For approved compounds, we reference FDA approval letters, prescribing information, and adverse event databases (FAERS).
- Clinical trial registries: We check ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing and completed trials to provide context on where research stands.
- Evidence classification: Every compound is assigned one of four evidence levels based on the quality and quantity of available data.
Evidence classification system
We classify each compound into one of four evidence tiers. This classification appears on every compound page so readers always know the strength of the underlying data.
Strong Evidence
Multiple published clinical trials in humans with consistent, reproducible results. FDA-approved compounds typically fall here.
Moderate Evidence
Limited clinical data in humans, or strong pre-clinical evidence with some human studies. Results are promising but not yet definitive.
Preliminary Evidence
Early-stage research, primarily animal studies or small pilot trials. Not enough data to draw firm conclusions about human use.
Anecdotal
User reports and community data only. No published clinical evidence available. We label this clearly and do not present it as established fact.
Quality scoring
Every page is scored across six dimensions before publishing. The minimum score to publish is 85 out of 100.
| Dimension | What it measures |
|---|---|
| SEO | Title tags, meta descriptions, heading structure, internal linking |
| Medical Accuracy | Claims match cited sources, dosing aligns with published data |
| FDA/FTC Compliance | No banned health claims, proper disclaimers, affiliate disclosures |
| Readability | Flesch-Kincaid grade level, sentence length, jargon density |
| E-E-A-T Signals | Author attribution, citations, methodology transparency, update dates |
| Engagement | FAQ quality, internal linking, clear next actions for the reader |
Review and update cadence
- New compounds: Full editorial pipeline (research, draft, compliance scan, scoring, review) before publishing.
- Existing compounds: Quarterly review against new published research. Update dates reflect actual content changes.
- Compliance monitoring: Automated scanning flags FDA-banned phrases, unsupported health claims, and readability issues on every edit.
- Blog posts: Same 6-dimension scoring. Same 85-point minimum. No exceptions.
What we will not do
- Present preliminary research as if it were established clinical fact
- Make therapeutic claims about research-only compounds
- Remove or hide unfavorable safety data
- Allow sponsors to influence editorial content
- Publish without meeting our quality threshold
Contact
Questions about our editorial process? Spot an error in our content? Contact us. We take corrections seriously and update content promptly when errors are identified.
Get the Peptide Starter Kit (free)
Quick-start guide to GLP-1 peptides, dosing basics, and what to ask your doctor.