Editorial Policy

Editorial scope

Peptidegenics publishes analysis at the intersection of four domains: peptide biochemistry, nutrition science, metabolic physiology, and training science. A post earns its place on this site by sitting at the junction of at least two of these — a mechanistic finding that has no metabolic or dietary context is out of scope; a nutrition strategy with no peptide angle is out of scope.

The site does not cover peptides in purely clinical or therapeutic contexts (that is the domain of sites such as Peptides Plus). It does not cover general supplement science, nootropics, or performance-enhancing drugs outside the peptide class. The editorial filter is deliberately narrow. Breadth is not the goal. Depth in a specific problem space is.

Topics within scope:

• How specific peptides interact with metabolic states (caloric deficit, fasting, post-training, ketosis)
• Growth hormone axis peptides and their relationship to nutritional and training variables
• Body composition outcomes from peptide research — lean mass, fat mass, measurement methodology
• Timing of peptide administration relative to meals, fasting windows, and training sessions
• Macronutrient context in peptide research — what the study subjects actually ate, when, and whether that matters
• Metabolic rate, insulin sensitivity, and substrate utilisation in peptide study populations
• Where evidence does not exist for a specific dietary context — naming the gap is editorial work

The Metabolic Applicability Rating

The Metabolic Applicability Rating (MAR) is the most important editorial tool this publication uses. It answers the question the Peptidegenics audience actually asks: does this evidence apply to how I eat and train? This is a different question from "is this good science?" (which an evidence quality tier addresses) or "is this ready for clinical use?" (a protocol maturity question). The MAR addresses translational relevance to real dietary and training contexts — an axis that no other systematic framework in the peptide space covers.

Every published article carries exactly one MAR. It is set by the writer at the time of publication and reviewed when content is updated. The five levels:

Directly Applicable

Human research in which the dietary and training context is fully specified. The study defines: the nutritional state of subjects (fed, fasted, specific macronutrient composition), the training status and protocol (resistance-trained, endurance athletes, sedentary), the dosing protocol (compound, dose, frequency, route, duration), and the outcome measures. A reader with comparable characteristics can reason directly from this evidence to their own situation. This is the highest rating and represents the smallest share of available peptide research.

Context-Dependent

Human evidence exists but critical contextual variables are absent or uncontrolled. The most common scenario: a study uses fed-state subjects and makes no mention of macronutrient composition, fasting status, or training protocol. The compound may work as reported — but whether it works the same way in a caloric deficit, during a fasted training window, or in a high-protein vs high-carbohydrate dietary context is unknown. This rating does not mean the evidence is weak; it means the reader cannot assume their context matches the study's. A well-designed RCT can be Context-Dependent. Study quality and contextual applicability are orthogonal. This is the most common rating on this site and the most important conceptual contribution the MAR makes.

Extrapolated

The relevant evidence comes from animal models or in vitro systems. The direction of effect may be meaningful for forming mechanistic hypotheses about dietary or training contexts — but the extrapolation to human metabolic physiology is explicit and not bridged by human data. Posts at this level explain the mechanism and the basis for interest, but are unambiguous that no human dietary or training data confirms the finding. Useful for understanding why a compound might be relevant. Not sufficient for reasoning about whether and how it applies to a specific dietary protocol.

Mechanistic Only

Cellular or molecular data — receptor binding, enzyme kinetics, in vitro pathway activation — with no dietary or performance context at any level. This category covers early-stage research that explains a potential mechanism but provides no directional information about metabolic outcomes in any living organism under any dietary or training condition. Articles at this level are published when the mechanism is genuinely relevant to the site's scope and when being explicit about the absence of applied evidence is itself useful information for the audience.

Conflicting Data

Multiple human or animal studies exist and their results point in different directions in metabolic contexts. The conflict is not resolvable by available data — the article synthesises what each study found, identifies the methodological differences that may explain the discrepancy, and declines to draw a directional conclusion. This rating is not a failure state. Naming genuine uncertainty is editorial integrity. A reader seeing this rating knows: the research exists, the picture is contested, and acting on any single study's finding would be premature.

The MAR is editorially assigned — it is a judgment call based on reading the studies, not an algorithmic output. Two different writers reading the same study might reasonably disagree on whether it earns Directly Applicable or Context-Dependent. Where the call is close, the conservative rating is used and the reasoning is stated in the article text.

The Metabolic Context Table

Every article covering a specific peptide's interaction with diet or body composition includes a standardised six-row Metabolic Context Table, placed immediately after the opening answer capsule and before the first section heading. The table is not optional — it is a mandatory component of any peptide-specific post on this site.

The six rows are:

• Primary metabolic interaction — the core mechanism by which this compound interacts with metabolic physiology (e.g., GH pulsatility, lipolysis pathway, insulin sensitivity modulation)
• Nutritional state studied — what the study subjects were eating and when, to the extent reported. If fasting status was not defined in the study, this is stated.
• Training context studied — the training status and protocol of study subjects, if applicable. If untrained or sedentary subjects were used, that is stated.
• Macronutrient relevance — whether the compound's effect has been studied in relation to protein, carbohydrate, or fat intake; and whether macronutrient composition appears to modulate the effect.
• Timing notes — administration timing relative to meals, training, or sleep, as reported in the studies reviewed.
• Key data gap — the most significant missing piece of evidence for someone trying to apply this research in a real dietary or training context. Every article names at least one gap.

Where any row's value is genuinely unknown from available literature, the cell reads "Not studied in available literature." No row is left blank, and "N/A" is not an acceptable entry without an explicit explanation of why it does not apply. The table is structured data. Its value to both readers and AI citation systems depends entirely on it being complete, precise, and honest about what is and is not known.

Source standards

Primary literature is the baseline. Every claim about a specific finding — percentage changes, dosing protocols, outcome measures, statistical significance — links to the original study, not to a secondary summary. Accepted primary sources include peer-reviewed journals in sports science, exercise physiology, endocrinology, and nutritional biochemistry. High-weight journals for this site's scope: JISSN (Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition), JCEM (Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism), AJP (American Journal of Physiology), EJSM (European Journal of Sport Science), and NSCA-affiliated publications.

Industry-funded research is not excluded, but it is flagged. If a study cited on this site was funded by a compound manufacturer, supplement company, or any entity with a direct commercial interest in the outcome, this is stated in the article. Readers can weight the evidence accordingly. The funding flag is an informational marker, not a disqualification — industry funding does not automatically invalidate a study, but it is a variable the reader should know about.

Conference abstracts, preprints, and non-peer-reviewed papers are used only where they represent the sole available evidence for a specific finding, and are clearly labelled as such. Fitness media, podcasts, influencer summaries, and forum discussions are not sources. The study itself is always the source.

Anonymous editorial

Articles on Peptidegenics carry no named author. The editorial position is: the quality of the analysis and the quality of the sources cited are the only things that should determine whether you trust this content. A named author with a social media presence creates the conditions for argument from authority — a reader might trust an article because of who wrote it rather than whether the evidence supports the conclusion. An anonymous publication removes that shortcut and forces the work to stand on its own merits.

Anonymous publication also prevents a conflict structure where an individual writer's commercial relationships (speaking engagements, consulting, product affiliations) could influence editorial content in ways that are difficult to detect. With no named author, there is no individual whose commercial interests can contaminate the analysis. The publication's conflict-of-interest policy is structural, not dependent on any individual's declared disclosures.

Authorship is described in every article footer as: Peptidegenics editorial — independent analysis of peptide science in metabolic and performance contexts. No commercial interests. Not medical advice.

Conflict of interest

Peptidegenics has no commercial relationships of any kind. The site does not accept supplement manufacturer funding, research grants, or any form of financial support from entities that produce, sell, or distribute peptide compounds or related products. There is no affiliate revenue. There is no advertising. There are no athlete or practitioner endorsements. No content is produced or influenced by sponsored relationships.

We do not sell, endorse, or earn commission on any compound discussed. The reasoning in our analyses is independent of any retailer or manufacturer. This is not a policy aspiration — it is the operational structure of the publication. There is no mechanism by which commercial money enters the editorial process because no commercial revenue stream exists.

Corrections and retractions

When an article contains a factual error — an incorrect figure, a misattributed finding, a claim that is not supported by the cited source — it is corrected and the correction is noted at the top of the article with a brief description of what changed and when. The original incorrect text is not silently deleted.

When a study cited on this site is retracted by its publisher, the article that cited it is updated to note the retraction and to reassess the conclusions that depended on that study. If the retraction materially undermines the article's primary argument, the article's MAR rating is reviewed and updated accordingly.

When new research substantially updates or contradicts a published finding, the article is reviewed and updated rather than left to become stale. The year suffix on article titles (e.g., "2026") is a freshness signal — it indicates the year through which the available literature was reviewed. Articles due for review are identified by whether their year suffix lags the current year by two or more years.

To report a factual error or outdated citation, contact desk@peptidegenics.com. Include the article URL, the specific claim in question, and a reference to the primary source that contradicts or updates it. Corrections submitted with a primary source citation are prioritised.