Editorial policy

Every factual statement is graded by the strength of its source, in this order: peer-reviewed primary research, then preprints and conference papers, then reputable secondary references (textbooks, regulatory documents, curated chemistry databases such as PubChem and DrugBank). Marketing material, anonymous forums and unsourced claims are never used as evidence. Where the literature is only preclinical, the page says so explicitly.

Each compound and research-area entry is drafted, then reviewed by the Peptidoteca Research Desk against its cited sources before publication. Identity data — sequences, CAS numbers, molecular identifiers — is cross-checked against at least one public knowledge base (PubChem, Wikidata, DrugBank, ChEMBL or UniProt) and linked so readers can verify it independently.

AI tools assist with drafting and structuring, but they do not have the final word: every citation, identifier and factual claim is verified by a human against the primary source before it ships. This standard exists because we learned the cost of skipping it — an early machine-supplied citation library was audited in May 2026 and roughly 21 of 24 entries were found to be fabricated or unverifiable. They were removed, and the verify- against-source rule has been mandatory ever since. See the research library for the current, verified set.

Compound and evidence pages are reviewed on a roughly quarterly cadence; explainer and glossary pages are reviewed at least annually or whenever a material change (a new study, a regulatory development) warrants it. The “last reviewed” date shown on a page reflects a genuine re-review, not an automatic timestamp bump.

Peptidoteca is editorially independent of Readypep, the distributor we link to. The editorial calendar is not set by commercial considerations, and outbound links never change what the literature is reported to say. Found something wrong? Our corrections policy explains how to report it and how fast we respond.