Editorial Standards

These are the operating constraints we write under. They are not aspirational. They are the conditions under which Cult of Peptides is worth reading.

Sources

Every factual claim in our editorial content is sourced. When we cite a study, we link to it or provide enough detail to find it independently. We identify the study type — rodent model, human trial, case series, systematic review — because the type of evidence matters. A rat study and a double-blind RCT are not the same thing. We will not write as though they are.

When we cite community data — forum posts, self-reported protocols, anecdotal accounts — we identify it as such. Community consensus is evidence of a different kind than peer-reviewed research. Both are useful. Neither substitutes for the other.

What “Users Report” Means

“Users report” means exactly that: people in online communities have documented an experience with a compound. It does not mean the experience is universal, reproducible, or scientifically validated. It means enough people reported the same thing that it is worth noting and worth investigating. When we use this framing, we are not endorsing the reported outcome. We are recording that it was reported.

We do not fabricate community data. We do not aggregate reports in ways that misrepresent sentiment. If the community is divided on a compound, we say so. If the evidence is weak, we say so. If nobody has tried it, we say so.

The Founder’s Experience

The founding editor of this publication has personal experience with the compounds covered here. When that experience is relevant to an article, it is disclosed in first person. It constitutes one data point — the most honest kind we have access to — not a clinical finding. First-person experience is offered as context, not as evidence of efficacy.

Corrections

When we publish something factually incorrect, we correct it. Corrections are noted in the article with a date and a description of what changed. We do not silently edit errors and pretend they did not exist. If the error was significant, we say so prominently.

To submit a correction, email editor@cultofpeptides.com with the article URL, the specific claim you believe is incorrect, and your source.

Independence

Editorial decisions at Cult of Peptides are made without commercial influence. No advertiser, affiliate partner, or sponsor has editorial access. Coverage is not for sale. A compound does not get covered because someone paid for coverage, and a compound does not get favorable coverage because we have a financial relationship with a vendor who supplies it.

When financial relationships exist that are relevant to our coverage, they are disclosed. See our Disclosures page.

What We Do Not Publish

• Health claims that imply a compound treats, cures, or prevents any medical condition
• Dosing protocols presented as prescriptions or medical recommendations
• Content fabricated or materially embellished for engagement
• Anonymous sourcing without editorial justification (sources who request anonymity for legitimate reasons are protected; sources who are anonymous because the claim is unverifiable are not published)