Version 1.0 · Effective 1 September 2026
Editorial, evidence and corrections standards
This is the operating standard for the research library—not a trust badge. It explains who produces the pages, how claims are sourced, how evidence stages stay separated, when dates change and how corrections are recorded.
01 · Ownership and accountability
Authorship is stated without invented credentials
Research pages are prepared and maintained by the AUS Peptide Supply editorial team. Until a real, qualified person has reviewed and signed a specific page, we do not label it “medically reviewed”, “scientist reviewed” or attach a fictional expert identity.
Each dossier displays its publication date, last source-check date and version. A named reviewer may be added later only to the pages that person actually reviewed, together with their relevant role and the review date.
02 · Source selection
Source hierarchy
- 01Primary peer-reviewed studies and trial registries for study-specific claims.
- 02Australian regulators, legislation and public registers for legal or approval status.
- 03Systematic reviews for orientation and evidence gaps, followed back to the primary papers where practical.
- 04Authoritative chemical databases for nomenclature and identifiers, never as batch-quality proof.
- 05Manufacturer releases, vendor pages, forums and social posts are not used as independent efficacy evidence.
03 · Evidence labelling
Evidence stages are not blended together
Regulatory
Current regulator notices, registers and legislation. Regulatory status is checked independently from scientific publication.
Human randomised
Controlled allocation in people. Population, product, comparator, endpoint and trial limits remain attached to the finding.
Human observational / early-phase
Human measurements without definitive outcome evidence, or small safety/PK/PD studies. These are not presented as confirmation of broad efficacy.
Preclinical
Cell, tissue, biochemical or animal research. Model and species are stated; human outcomes are not inferred.
Analytical identity
Methods addressing composition, identity, purity or content. A test result is not treated as clinical evidence.
04 · Claim rules
How a finding becomes page copy
- • We state the model or population, study design and relevant endpoint before summarising a result.
- • We keep the limitation beside the finding rather than hiding it in a generic disclaimer.
- • We do not convert animal, cell or mechanistic research into a human outcome statement.
- • We do not turn a medicine trial into proof that another supplier’s material is equivalent.
- • We do not publish dosing, injection or treatment instructions in evidence dossiers.
- • Regulatory status is checked separately from scientific evidence and updated when a primary regulator record changes.
05 · Analytical reporting
One percentage cannot answer every quality question
Identity, chromatographic area purity, quantitative content, sterility, endotoxin, residual solvents and container integrity are different measurements. Pages must identify which question a report actually answers. “Third-party tested” is used only when an independent report identifies the sample, method and result; it is not inferred from a vendor-created summary.
06 · Review and date policy
Dates change only when work changes
A publication date records first release. A reviewed date records a documented source check. A modified date changes only after substantive copy, evidence, status or correction work—not to create artificial freshness.
High-change subjects are checked at least every 90 days. Other dossiers are checked at least annually, and sooner after a regulator alert, trial publication, retraction, material source correction or credible reader report.
07 · Corrections
Report, assess, correct and record
- 1. Report: send the page URL, disputed wording and supporting primary source to contact@auspeptidesupply.com.
- 2. Assess: we compare the claim with the cited source, current regulator record and any stronger primary evidence.
- 3. Correct: material factual errors are amended promptly; unclear wording is clarified without silently changing the underlying claim.
- 4. Record: the page version and modified date change, and material corrections are added to the public log below.
08 · Assisted drafting
Automation does not become an authority
Software and AI may assist with source discovery, structure, consistency checks and drafting. They are not cited as evidence, and generated text is not published solely because it sounds plausible. The displayed primary sources remain the basis for each evidence statement.
Public change log
Standards revisions and material corrections
17 September 2026 · Resource release
Added the source-linked analytical-method reference and terminology crosswalk, original explanatory diagrams and a fictional supplier worksheet example. Added an immutable comparison archive and clarified the difference between historical prices and the live store overlay. HPLC illustration values are hypothetical and are not catalogue test results. These changes do not claim independent scientific peer review.
14 September 2026 ? Version 1.1
Added the organisational editorial profile, article update records and source navigation. The weight-loss evidence guide now cites retatrutide PMID 37366315; the previous PMID 37357331 referred to an unrelated study. Calculator, handling, analytical and procurement guides were revised with page-specific change notes. All 14 existing learning-hub articles were subsequently revised. Citation-identity checks found further unrelated links in the receptor-comparison, inflammation, GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and NAD+ articles; those guides were rebuilt with verified primary records and page-specific correction notes. These editorial checks do not constitute independent scientific peer review.
1 September 2026 · Version 1.0
Initial publication of the source hierarchy, evidence labels, commercial-interest disclosure, review cadence and corrections workflow. No material dossier corrections recorded at launch.