Editorial Standards

Maintained by the BPC-157 Research Team · Last updated 7 September 2026

This page explains how the guides on this site are researched, written, checked and maintained. It exists so that anyone reading our content can see exactly where our information comes from and what standards it has to meet before it is published.

Who writes and reviews our guides

Guides are produced by the BPC-157 Research Team and every page is reviewed and approved by a named human editor before it appears on the site. Nothing is published automatically. A guide that has not passed human review does not go live.

How we search the literature

Our primary source is PubMed, the US National Library of Medicine's index of biomedical research, which covers the journals where peptide research is published. For each compound we search its common name, its synonyms and its research designations, and we read the underlying papers rather than summaries of them.

We apply no date restriction. For BPC-157 that means the record from the first descriptions of the compound in the early 1990s through to the present. We also run a weekly automated check for newly indexed publications on the compounds we cover, so new evidence reaches us within days of being indexed rather than when we next happen to look.

Where a claim concerns law or regulation we go to the primary source, including UK legislation, MHRA guidance and official regulator publications, rather than to secondary reporting.

How studies are selected

We weigh evidence by its ability to answer the question asked. A randomised controlled trial in humans outranks an uncontrolled human report. An uncontrolled human report outranks an animal study for questions about people, and animal studies outrank cell studies. We state the species for every research finding, because a result in rats is a result in rats and we never present it as a human outcome.

We do not exclude inconvenient studies. Where the evidence for a compound is thin, concentrated in one research group, or absent, the guide says so. Where a compound has failed a properly controlled trial, we report the failure.

How claims are verified

Every citation on this site is checked against the PubMed record before publication. We confirm that the paper exists, that the authors, journal and year are correct, and that the paper actually supports the sentence citing it. Each reference links to its DOI or PubMed record so readers can check the source themselves.

Claims that cannot be traced to a verifiable source do not appear on the site. If the honest answer to a question is unknown, the guide says unknown.

Review process

Before publication every guide passes two stages. Automated checks enforce our sourcing and compliance rules, including species-explicit research claims, verified citations and the required regulatory notices. A human editor then reviews the full text and approves it for publication. The same process applies to updates of existing guides.

Corrections

If we get something wrong we correct it. Factual errors are corrected as soon as they are identified, the page's last updated date changes, and material corrections are noted on the affected page so readers can see what changed. To report an error in any guide, contact us through the details on our contact page and include the page and the passage concerned.

Conflicts of interest

This site sells research peptides. That is a commercial interest in the subject we write about, and we state it here rather than leaving it to be discovered. Our guides exist because accurate information about these compounds is hard to find, and we believe stating the evidence honestly, including the gaps in it, serves readers and the business better than exaggeration.

No manufacturer, laboratory or third party pays for coverage on this site. We accept no sponsored content in our guides.

Commercial and editorial separation

Our guides report what the published evidence shows, including findings that do not favour the products we sell. We do not claim any research peptide is effective or safe in humans, because no controlled human evidence supports such a claim for the compounds we cover. Product links within guides are limited, appear only where the surrounding text is already about that subject, and are never attached to research findings or safety statements.

Every product we sell is supplied for laboratory research use only. Our guides repeat that position rather than softening it.

Use of AI

We use AI tools to assist with research retrieval and drafting. AI is not a source. Every citation is verified against the source database by the process above, and every page is reviewed and approved by a human editor before publication. Responsibility for everything published on this site rests with the editorial team, not with a tool.

How guides are updated

Peptide research moves, and a page that was accurate at publication can become wrong. Our weekly literature check monitors the compounds we cover, with particular attention to the central fact on which many of our guides rest, which is that no controlled human trial of BPC-157 has been published. If that changes, the affected guides change. Every guide displays the date it was last updated, and updates pass the same review process as new pages.

Contact

Questions about this policy or about any guide can be sent through our contact page. We read every report of a suspected error.