Editorial Standards

Peptide stability is a field where confident-sounding numbers vastly outnumber measured ones. Vendor pages, forums, and AI-generated summaries repeat storage windows that no one has ever assayed. This page describes the rules PeptideClock uses to avoid adding to that pile — how claims are sourced, how uncertainty is labeled, and what happens when we get something wrong.

Where claims come from

Every factual, numerical, or safety-relevant statement on this site must trace to a source, and sources are ranked. At the top sit regulatory and official documents: FDA product labels, DailyMed monographs, EMA documents, and ICH stability guidelines. Below them comes peer-reviewed primary literature, cited inline with linked PubMed IDs so a reader can open the study a claim rests on without hunting for it. Institutional guidance that accurately summarizes primary evidence ranks third. Last — and only for statements explicitly flagged as such — comes PeptideClock's own decay model.

Some things never count as evidence here, no matter how often they are repeated: vendor marketing copy, forum and social media posts, and AI-generated summaries. A citation is only used after the source itself has been opened and checked against the exact claim it supports. If a claim needs a primary source and none exists, the claim is either cut or published with its uncertainty stated outright.

The four evidence tiers

Readers will see the same small set of labels across the site, and each one is a specific promise. Label-backed means a claim comes from an FDA-approved product label — the strongest tier, and deliberately kept separate from research-compound guidance, because a stability window on a branded, buffered, quality-controlled product does not automatically transfer to a research vial of the same molecule.Peer-reviewed means a published study, cited by PMID, directly supports the statement. Mechanistic extrapolation means no peptide-specific study exists but general protein chemistry supports the inference — a real tier of evidence, and a visibly weaker one. And [Model Estimate — PeptideClock] marks numbers produced by our internal model, which are calibrated judgments, not measurements. A rate shown with that label has not been assayed, and we would rather say so than borrow credibility the data does not have.

What we will not publish

The site draws hard lines that no traffic argument moves. No dosing, treatment, or efficacy recommendations — the calculators show arithmetic, never what anyone should take. No fabricated sources, reviewers, or credentials. No certainty theater: if the honest answer is "no peptide-specific study exists," that sentence gets published instead of a made-up number. And structured data shown to search engines must match what a human reader actually sees on the page — nothing is marked up that is not visible.

Corrections and updates

Errors get corrected in the page where they occurred, not quietly deleted. The site maintains an internal audit of its medical and stability claims, and material corrections are noted in article change logs. This process has real output: past audits caught and fixed a miscited study reference in a BPC-157 article and a description of benzyl alcohol as a pH buffer when it is in fact a bacteriostatic preservative. Content is also revisited when the underlying evidence moves — a new FDA label revision, a newly published study that supports or contradicts a claim, or a recalibration of the decay model — and pages carry an updated date when their substance changes.

Independence and monetization

Some pages carry affiliate links to general lab and handling supplies, disclosed on every page where they appear and in full in theDisclaimer & Legal Notice. Two boundaries keep that separate from the editorial work: the site never links peptides themselves, only ordinary equipment, and no affiliate consideration ever shapes a stability estimate, evidence label, or recommendation. PeptideClock has no relationship with any peptide vendor or manufacturer.

Corrections contact

If you find an error — a wrong number, a citation that does not support its claim, an outdated label reference — please send it, with a source if you have one, toresearch@peptideclock.com. Substantiated corrections are applied and noted.