How we research and write
Every claim on this site is either sourced to primary literature or marked as unsourced. This page says who writes, how sources are chosen, what has not been independently reviewed, and how to tell us we got something wrong.
Who writes these posts?
The Pepstral Research Team — the same small group that specifies the catalogue, reads the certificates and answers support email. We are not a newsroom and we do not employ staff scientists. What we bring is direct, daily contact with peptide sourcing, testing and handling, and a discipline about citing primary sources rather than repeating what other vendors say.
We say this plainly because the alternative is worse. A great deal of writing in this category carries an invented byline with invented credentials. We would rather tell you exactly what we are.
Where do the numbers come from?
Molecular formulas, molecular weights, CAS numbers and PubChem identifiers are read from PubChem at the time of writing, not from memory or from other suppliers' pages. Purity, identity and endotoxin figures come from the lot-matched certificate for the vial in question. Where a figure is arithmetic — a concentration table, a molarity conversion — the arithmetic is shown so you can check it.
Where we could not verify something, we say so in the post rather than rounding it into a claim. Three compounds in our catalogue have no CAS number published by PubChem, and their spec blocks are blank rather than filled with a plausible-looking number.
How are sources chosen?
Primary literature first: the paper that reported the finding, cited with a DOI so you can follow it. Where a manufacturing or quality-control practice is described, we cite the people who do it — peptide manufacturers and pharmacopoeias — rather than a secondary summary. Regulatory statements cite the agency document.
We do not cite other peptide vendors as authorities on pharmacology. We do reference them when the subject is what the market does, and we say that is what we are doing.
What has not been reviewed?
None of these posts has been reviewed by an independent subject-matter expert. They are researched and written in-house, sourced as described above, and checked against the primary papers — but no external scientist has signed off on them, and we will not imply otherwise.
Two areas need more than we can supply. Our post on the legal status of research peptides needs review by an attorney, and says so. Any post touching clinical evidence is describing published trial results as context, never as a claim about the material we sell, which is for laboratory research only.
How do you handle corrections?
When we get something wrong we change the post and move the update date, rather than quietly editing. If the error changed the substance, we say what changed. Tell us at support@pepstral.com and include the URL and the specific claim — we would rather be corrected than consistent.
This is not a hypothetical. We have corrected our own spec pages against PubChem more than once, including a residue count that our own molecular-weight arithmetic proved wrong.
What we will not publish
- Dosing protocols, human or animal. Everything here is for in-vitro laboratory research.
- Efficacy claims. We describe what a compound is and what it has been studied for, not what it does for anyone.
- Before-and-after imagery, testimonials, or anything implying personal use.
- Invented authorship or credentials.
Questions about this page go to support@pepstral.com. Everything sold on this site is for in-vitro laboratory research only and is not for human or animal consumption, diagnostic or therapeutic use.
