A peptide research library.

Peptidoteca is a working bibliography of peptide research, with editorial articles that explain what the literature actually says — without naming compounds, without dosing guidance, and without pretending the human-outcome evidence is further along than it is.

We don't sell anything. We don't recommend anything. We summarise peer-reviewed work in mechanism-class language and link out to the source.

Why we never write compound names in the body

Most peptide research groups molecules by what they signal — the receptor pathway, the cellular phenotype — not by trade name or compound abbreviation. So we follow the literature: “regenerative-peptide pathway,” “mitochondrial multitasker,” “cognitive-support short peptide.”

It's also defensible. Mechanism-class coverage doesn't trip the regulatory framing that consumer-marketing copy does. And it forces our writing to stay at the level the evidence supports.

Compound names exist where they belong: in the research library, where each paper is presented with its full Vancouver reference, DOI, and a one-paragraph paraphrase of what the abstract actually shows.

How we vet a citation

Earlier in 2026 we audited a citation set we'd been handed by a generative model. Twenty-one of twenty-four entries had real-looking URLs paired with hallucinated bibliographies. We threw the whole set out and started over.

Now: every paper is fetched directly. We read the abstract. If our paraphrase doesn't match what the abstract actually says, we don't publish the citation. If a citation can't be re-validated when a reader flags it, we take it down.

That's also why the library leans toward open-access journals — Cureus, Frontiers, MDPI, Cell Press open access. We want you to be able to read the same papers we cite, without a paywall.

What this is not

Not a clinic, not a storefront, not a recommendation engine. We don't tell you what to take, when to take it, or how much. We can't — that's the wrong relationship for an editorial library to have with a reader, and the literature doesn't support those answers anyway.

If you want to translate any of this into a clinical or research-practice decision, the right next step is a qualified physician or institutional review process. The cited papers are public; the methods are right there.

The relationship to Readypep

Readypepis the United-Kingdom-based authorised distributor of MetaTide research peptide dispensers. We link to them as the place readers go when their research progresses past the editorial layer. The link is one-way. Readypep doesn't see what we're publishing before we publish it, and the editorial calendar isn't set by their commercial decisions.

Found something we got wrong?

Email corrections@peptidoteca.comwith the article, the citation ID, and what looks off. We aim to reply within five business days and to issue a correction (or take a piece down) within ten if the citation chain can't be re-validated.