Editorial Policy

Peptide Certify accepts no advertising tied to vendor ratings, no affiliate links, no sponsored articles, and no free products from the companies we research. There is no mechanism by which a vendor can pay for favorable coverage, because there is no paid coverage of any kind.

Claims are graded in tiers: Tier 1, peer-reviewed literature and regulatory documents; Tier 2, named third-party laboratory test results; Tier 3, archived community discussion and dated public records; Tier 4, labeled anecdote, used sparingly and always marked. Where tiers conflict, the higher tier governs and conflicts are disclosed.

Technical articles cite primary literature (journal articles, pharmacopeial chapters, instrument manufacturer technical documentation) at the end of every page. Vendor articles state the public source of every factual claim; where public information is limited, the article says so instead of filling space.

Errors reported via the contact page are reviewed and corrected with a visible change note where material. Pages carry a dateModified stamp that reflects genuine content revisions, not cosmetic updates.

We use drafting and organizational tools in our workflow, as most publishers now do. The governing rule is that every published claim must trace to a graded public source or to primary literature — regardless of which tools helped assemble the text. Technical passages are checked against the cited sources before publication, and vendor articles are checked source-by-source against their tier labels.

What we do not do is publish unsourced generated text. If a claim cannot be sourced, it does not appear; if a source cannot be graded, it is not used. The tool is a word processor with opinions; the policy is ours.

Three exclusions define this site's scope. We publish no usage, dosing, or administration guidance for any peptide in any context — our reconstitution content is strictly in-vitro sample-preparation mathematics. We publish no non-public information: private disputes, hearsay, or screenshots of private conversations are not evidence. And we publish no vendor rankings, best-of lists, or verdicts — profiles and checklists, because a ranking hides the reasoning that produced it.