Our Editorial Standards

Authorship and publishing responsibility

Kaden Coziar is the responsible publisher. He is accountable for publishing decisions and corrections, including content prepared with software assistance.

“By Peptide Care Index” is an organizational byline. It identifies the publication and does not represent an unnamed medical team. The publisher profile explains the role behind it.

We credit an individual only for work they actually performed. A contributor credit identifies their role; a review credit identifies the material reviewed. We do not attribute writing or review to someone without their permission.

Source and claim standards

Before publication, substantive factual claims about access, regulation, research, providers, or prices must have an identifiable source that supports the wording used. The source should concern the same molecule, form, route, offer, and jurisdiction as the claim.

We prefer original records and link readers to them. We preserve relevant dates and conditions, distinguish proposals from final actions, and attribute provider statements to providers. A source citation does not turn a marketing claim into independent verification.

If evidence is missing or conflicting, the wording must show that. We remove unsupported assertions rather than filling gaps with assumptions. Our methodology explains how we use different records and compare offers.

Use of AI and automation

AI tools assisted with the current release, including drafting and editing copy, retrieving records, and locating cited statements.

AI output is a working draft, not a source or a credential. Our publication standard requires checking substantive claims against the underlying records before publishing them. A fluent summary, generated citation, or automated match is not sufficient evidence by itself.

We do not use AI to impersonate a clinician, invent a reviewer, generate a supposed patient testimonial, or imply that a product has been tested. Editorial source checking must be distinguished from clinical, pharmacy, or legal review.

These are publishing requirements. They do not establish that a particular person has reviewed a page. Completed review is identified through the page’s specific credits and dates.

Expert review and its limits

No clinician, pharmacist, or regulatory specialist has reviewed the current release. We do not describe it as having undergone a medical review or as work by a medical authority.

When a conclusion requires qualified clinical, pharmacy, or regulatory interpretation that we have not obtained, we withhold that conclusion and identify the point as unresolved. We can report what a record says without claiming to determine how it applies to an individual patient or transaction.

When qualified review occurs, the relevant page must show the reviewer’s name, relevant credentials, review scope, version or material reviewed, review date, and disclosed conflicts of interest. Reviewing one passage is not reviewing the whole publication. Later substantive changes must not inherit an earlier review credit unless that review covers them.

Labels and the scope of checks

Labels should describe the actual observation: for example, “Price published by provider” or “Access basis unresolved.” We do not use a blanket “verified,” “approved,” or “safe” badge to represent an editorial source check.

Our current checks use published records. They do not include independent license checks, pharmacy inspections, provider contact, purchases, or product testing. Findings are dated observations; we do not monitor sources continuously.

What the dates mean

Published

When the page was first made publicly available.

Updated

When substantive content, findings, prices, or terms last changed.

Source date

The date on the underlying document or record.

Sources checked

When the cited records were last retrieved and the relevant statements checked.

Reviewed

When the named reviewer reviewed the identified material within the stated scope.

We do not reset a substantive update date for a wording or layout fix. Rechecking a source without a changed finding updates its check date.

Independence and conflicts of interest

Current provider links are unpaid. No provider has paid for inclusion, placement, or findings.

Commercial relationships must be disclosed where readers encounter affected links and on How we make money. Payment does not determine editorial findings or the alphabetical order of the current comparison. Contributors and reviewers must disclose relevant relationships with the subjects they address.

Corrections

To report a factual error, use Contact and corrections. Include the page, disputed wording, and a source or explanation that helps us examine the issue. Please do not send medical records or sensitive personal information.

We evaluate reports against records. A disagreement or unverified provider assertion does not automatically change a finding. When a report establishes an error, we correct the affected content. A substantive correction receives a dated note explaining what was wrong and what changed.

If a material claim cannot be supported while an issue is examined, it should be removed or clearly marked unresolved. We do not silently replace substantive findings or use a fresh date to hide a correction.