About and editorial standards

What this site is

The Peptide Progress is an educational publication about peptide research literacy: how research peptides are identified, how they are tested, and how the resulting documentation should be read. It exists because analytical paperwork circulates widely in this field while the skill of reading it does not.

We publish explanatory articles, a glossary and reading guides. We do not sell anything, take advertising, operate a shop, run a clinic or provide any medical, veterinary or laboratory service. There is no checkout on this site, no affiliate tracking, no discount code and no product catalogue — by design, and permanently.

Ownership disclosure

We think readers are entitled to know who is behind what they read, particularly on a subject where commercial interests are common.

The owner of this site is connected with ZENTRA Peptides. The Peptide Progress is operated independently as a non-commercial educational resource and is not presented as an independent company sponsored by ZENTRA, nor as a ZENTRA publication, nor as a party that has been vetted or endorsed by ZENTRA. There is no sponsorship arrangement behind this site, no paid placement and no affiliate relationship.

Because of that connection, a small number of ZENTRA educational pages are referenced where they cover a topic this site also covers. Those references are subject to three rules:

• They are labelled as external resources wherever they appear.
• They point to educational pages only — never to product, shop, checkout or basket pages — and carry no affiliate parameters, discount codes or promotional wrapping.
• They are editorial references chosen by us. They are not evidence of independent endorsement, in either direction, and they do not indicate that we have assessed or approved any supplier, product or testing programme.

Nothing on this site should be read as a recommendation to buy anything from anyone. If a page ever reads that way to you, that is a defect and we would like to hear about it — see contact.

Editorial process

Every substantive page follows the same route:

1. Scope. We define the single question a page answers, and what it will explicitly not cover. Pages that would require handling, dosing or clinical guidance to be useful are not written.
2. Sourcing. We identify primary literature, standards documents or accreditation guidance before drafting, rather than finding citations to support text already written.
3. Drafting. Text is written for a non-specialist reader. Where a concept has a limit, the limit goes in the same paragraph as the concept — not in a caveat at the end.
4. Technical check. Claims are checked against the cited sources, and any claim we cannot support is cut rather than softened.
5. Publication and review. Each substantive page carries a visible last reviewed date. Pages are re-read on a rolling basis and the date is only updated when the content has genuinely been re-checked.

Articles are published under the site’s own editorial byline rather than an individual’s, because they are collectively edited. Where an article draws on a specific paper or standard, that source is cited directly so readers can go to it instead of taking our word for it.

Sourcing standards

• Primary over secondary. Peer-reviewed literature, standards documents such as ISO/IEC 17025, ICH guidelines and accreditation body guidance, in preference to blog summaries or marketing material.
• No citation laundering. We do not cite a source we have not read, and we do not inherit citations from other secondary articles without checking them.
• Paywalled standards are cited by number. We identify the document precisely enough to be found without reproducing text we have no licence to republish.
• Citation is not endorsement. Referencing a standard describes a principle. It never implies that any supplier, laboratory, batch or product complies with that standard.
• No anecdote as evidence. Forum reports, testimonials and personal experience are not sources, and we do not repeat them.
• Original writing only. We write our own explanations rather than paraphrasing another publisher’s article, including the external pages we reference.
• Illustrative figures are labelled. The chromatograms, spectra and diagrams on this site are schematic illustrations drawn to explain a concept. They are not instrument output from any real sample, and they are captioned as illustrative wherever they appear.

Corrections policy

We would rather be corrected than consistent. If something here is wrong, out of date or misleading:

• Tell us through the contact page, ideally with the page URL and, where possible, a source.
• We aim to acknowledge reports within five working days.
• Substantive corrections — anything that changes the meaning of a claim — are made in the text and noted at the foot of the page with the date and what changed.
• Minor corrections such as typography, broken links or clarifications are made silently, and the last reviewed date is updated.
• If a claim cannot be substantiated, it is removed rather than hedged.
• Where an entire page is withdrawn, we say so at that URL rather than deleting it silently.

No page on this site currently carries a substantive correction. This section will list them at the relevant page when it does.

Independence and funding

This site carries no advertising, no sponsored posts, no affiliate links and no paid placements, and accepts no payment for coverage, links or mentions. It is funded by its owner as a non-commercial project. Should that ever change, the change would be disclosed on this page before any commercial content appeared.

Scope and limits

We write about analytical methods and documents, not about what any substance does in a person. We do not evaluate suppliers, authenticate certificates, test materials, or answer questions about human or veterinary use. Those limits are not modesty — they are what keeps this an educational resource rather than an advisory service. The full legal position is set out in our medical and research disclaimer and terms of use.