PeptideNerds

How We Research

Our editorial standards, methodology, and what makes this site different from every other peptide resource on the internet.

Research methodology

Every compound profile on this site follows the same research process:

  • Primary sources first. We start with peer-reviewed studies from PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and published clinical trial data. Animal studies, case reports, and preliminary data are clearly labeled as such.
  • PubMed IDs for verification. Every cited study includes a PMID so you can read the original research yourself. We do not cite sources you cannot verify.
  • Evidence grading. We classify evidence strength as: strong (large randomized controlled trials), moderate (small RCTs, meta-analyses), preliminary (Phase 1/2 data, animal studies), or anecdotal (community reports, case studies).
  • FDA status tracking. Every compound clearly states whether it is FDA-approved, in clinical trials, or research-only. We track regulatory changes and update pages when status changes.

Citation standards

We maintain strict citation standards to ensure you can trust what you read:

  • All medical and scientific claims link to published research in indexed journals.
  • Study details include: journal name, publication year, sample size (where relevant), and key findings.
  • We distinguish between human clinical data and preclinical (animal/in-vitro) data.
  • Dosing information references clinical trial protocols, not community forums or anecdotal reports.

Content review process

Every piece of content passes through a multi-step review before publication:

  • Medical accuracy review. Claims are checked against source studies. Dosing protocols are verified against clinical trial data.
  • FDA/FTC compliance scan. Automated scanning for banned claims, improper health claims, and missing disclaimers.
  • 6-dimension quality scoring. Content is scored across SEO optimization, medical accuracy, FDA/FTC compliance, readability, E-E-A-T signals, and user engagement. Minimum score to publish: 85/100.
  • Readability check. Target: 6th-8th grade reading level. Complex medical concepts are explained in plain language.

Update cadence

  • Weekly: New research monitoring across PubMed, clinical trial registries, and FDA announcements.
  • Monthly: Review of all compound profiles for accuracy against latest research.
  • Quarterly: Comprehensive site-wide review of all 279 pages, including dosing protocols, FDA status, and clinical trial progress.
  • As needed: Immediate updates for FDA approval changes, safety signals, or major trial results.

How we are different

Most peptide content online falls into two categories: vendor sites trying to sell you something, or forum posts with unverified anecdotes. We are neither.

  • No product sales. We do not sell peptides, supplements, or medications. Period.
  • No vendor influence. Content is written independently. No peptide company has editorial input.
  • 44 compound profiles. Not 5 or 10. Every clinically relevant peptide has a complete profile with mechanisms, dosing, side effects, and original research.
  • 200+ clinical citations. Real PubMed-indexed studies, not blog posts citing other blog posts.
  • 7 free tools. Dosage calculator, reconstitution calculator, peptide finder quiz, protocol tracker, and more. No paywall.
  • Honest about limitations. When evidence is weak, we say so. When a compound is research-only with limited human data, we state that clearly.

Transparency

  • Our affiliate relationships include FDA-approved medication providers, injection supplies, and research peptide vendors. All affiliate relationships are clearly disclosed. Editorial assessments are independent of affiliate relationships.
  • We do not accept sponsored content or paid placements within compound profiles.
  • Personal experience is clearly distinguished from clinical evidence.
  • Conflicts of interest are disclosed when they exist.

Vendor evaluation standards

We provide independent, criteria-based guidance on evaluating research peptide vendors. Our vendor assessments are based on transparent quality criteria including third-party testing, purity verification, and community reputation. Vendor evaluation content is clearly labeled and always includes appropriate disclaimers. Our editorial assessments are independent of any affiliate relationships.

What we do not do

  • We do not make therapeutic claims for non-FDA-approved compounds.
  • We do not provide personalized medical advice.
  • We do not guarantee results from any peptide protocol.

Contact

Found an error? Have a correction? See outdated information? Contact us and we will investigate and update promptly. Accuracy is our highest priority.