PUBLISHING STANDARD
Editorial Policy
How we source, write, label uncertainty, disclose conflicts, and maintain material after publication.
Our editorial job is to make the evidence easier to inspect without making it sound more certain than it is. Articles must identify the decision context, link the important source, and give limitations enough prominence to affect the reader’s interpretation.
Editorial principles
Accuracy before novelty
A careful explanation is more useful than being first with an unresolved claim.
Primary context
We prefer official records and original research, using high-quality reviews to orient rather than replace underlying evidence.
Visible uncertainty
Limitations, approval status, formulation differences, and evidence gaps appear where they change the conclusion.
No fabricated authority
No invented experts, doctors, personal experience, tests, traffic, testimonials, company facts, or credentials.
Commercial transparency
Future affiliate relationships must be disclosed; compensation cannot buy a conclusion or conceal selection criteria.
Reader safety
No dosing, cycles, self-administration, personal-use sourcing, diagnosis, prescription, or emergency advice.
AUTHORSHIP
Organization byline, real boundaries
Material is currently published by the Vital Peptide Lab Editorial Team. This is an organization author, not an assertion that a named clinician reviewed a page.
If a real individual editor or medical reviewer is added later, the site will publish only verifiable identity, role, credentials, scope of review, and relevant conflicts.
Maintenance and corrections
Monitor
Regulatory changes and material new evidence are candidates for review.
Assess
Editors determine whether the source changes wording, context, or conclusion.
Revise
Substantive updates receive an accurate modified date and note where useful.
Correct
Material errors are fixed transparently under the Corrections Policy.