Editorial policy and source standards

• Written byARP, in-houseNo outside agency, and no named scientific reviewer — because there is not one. Nothing here is independently peer reviewed.
• SourcesNamed and recordedPublished research, trial registries, chemical databases and manufacturers' own documents — never another supplier's page. Guides print their references; product pages do not.
• Unverified valuesLeft outA figure we cannot check for the exact material supplied is omitted, not estimated. An empty row is the honest answer.
• Commercial interestWe sell these materialsARP writes about compounds it sells. Read every page here with that in mind, and check the sources yourself.

Who writes this site

Everything on this site — product pages, guides, policies and this page — is written and reviewed in-house by Australian Research Peptides. There is no outside content agency, no ghostwriter and no syndicated copy bought in from a supplier.

There is no named scientific or medical reviewer, because ARP does not have one. That is a real limitation and it is stated here rather than disguised. The content is not medically reviewed, not clinically reviewed, and has not been through independent peer review. Some of the research it cites has been peer reviewed; the writing about that research has not.

The practical consequence is the reason the next section exists: if you cannot take an expert's name as your assurance, the claim has to rest on something that is not us. So the standard ARP holds itself to is that every scientific statement is recorded against a named source before it is published, and that a statement with nothing behind it does not get published at all.

Guides and product pages are published under the company name for the same reason. Attributing them to an invented individual, or to a title like "our research team", would describe a structure that does not exist. If a qualified reviewer is engaged in future, they will be named on the pages they actually reviewed and nowhere else.

What counts as a source

A source has to be something anyone can open and read for themselves. Scientific statements on a product page are recorded against one, together with a note saying what that source actually supports, before the statement is published.

These are the records ARP will cite:

• Published research, identified so it can be found: authors, journal, year and its PubMed or PubMed Central identifier.
• Clinical trial registry records, for the existence, design, size and status of a trial.
• Public chemical and pharmacological databases — PubChem, DrugBank, ChEMBL, WHO International Nonproprietary Name lists — for identity and structural facts.
• A developer's or manufacturer's own publication or published guidance, cited as what it is rather than dressed up as independent evidence.
• A regulator or a recognised national health body, for regulatory status.

Where you can follow a citation, and where you cannot. Each guide ends in a numbered reference list, and every entry there is a link you can open and read. Product pages do not print their sources today. The record behind each statement exists and is checked on every build, but it is not rendered on the page — so a product page is not somewhere you can click through to the evidence. That is a real gap, and it is stated here rather than left to be discovered.

An identifier is never copied from another supplier's product page. That is the single most common way a wrong molecular formula or CAS number travels around this industry, and a page that repeats one is not a second source, it is the same mistake twice.

Facts about ARP's own operation — what is in a vial, what a batch was tested for, how an order is handled — come from the business itself and from the laboratory's own reports, not from the literature. They are treated as a separate class of claim and are not dressed up as research findings.

How evidence and its limits are labelled

Evidence is described by what it is, not by how helpful it sounds. A finding in cultured cells, a finding in mice and a finding in a randomised trial in people are three different kinds of claim, and a page that reports all three in the same voice is misleading whether or not any individual sentence is false.

So, wherever a research finding appears:

• The model is named. If a result came from a mouse study it says so, and it is never restated as though it described a person.
• A trial result carries its population and its size — who was studied, how many, for how long — and it is attributed to that trial rather than to the compound in general.
• General guidance is not passed off as a specification for the material sold. Manufacturers' peptide handling and storage advice is cited as exactly that, and the page says so.
• Regulatory status is stated plainly and separately. Nothing on this site is an approved medicine in Australia or anywhere else, and no research finding is allowed to imply otherwise.

Internally, each source record also carries a note saying which statements it licenses and which figures were read and deliberately not published. That second half matters more than it sounds: it is what stops a striking number from a paper drifting onto a page it was never verified for.

What happens when something cannot be verified

It is left out. A specification row appears only when there is a checked value behind it, so a blank is not missing data waiting to be filled in later with a plausible-looking number — it is the finished answer, and it is a more useful one than a guess.

This is enforced rather than intended. The site is checked every time it is built: a chemical identifier published with no source recorded, or published without the supplied form being stated, stops the build outright — the page cannot ship. Prose that makes scientific statements with no sources recorded against it is reported on every build so it cannot sit unnoticed.

The same principle applies to facts about the service. Where something has not been confirmed — a carrier, a delivery window, a timeframe that depends on a third party — the site says nothing rather than estimating it, and you will find that some questions are answered with a limit rather than a figure.

What a review date means

Where a page carries written editorial content, it shows a date for when that content was last substantively reviewed. It is a statement about the writing, not a freshness signal, and the rule ARP applies internally is the one published here:

So a spelling correction, a formatting change, a fixed link or a layout edit does not move the date. Re-reading the sources, changing what a page claims, adding or removing a statement, or checking that the evidence still supports what is written does move it. A date that has not changed for a long time means the content has not been re-examined for a long time, which is information worth having rather than a defect worth hiding.

Corrections

If something on this site is wrong, tell us and we will fix it. Email contact@australianresearchpeptides.au with the page address and what you believe is incorrect. A source we can check makes it faster, but it is not a condition — a plain "this looks wrong" is worth sending. Support hours are Mon–Fri, 9:00am–5:00pm AEST and we aim to reply within 1 business day.

What happens next:

• The statement is checked against the source it was recorded against, not against memory and not against what other suppliers say.
• If it is wrong, it is corrected. If it cannot be substantiated at all, it is removed rather than softened into something vaguer — hedged wording does not make an unsupported claim supportable.
• If the correction changes what the page claims, the review date moves with it. If it was a typo, the date does not move.
• Where a correction matters to someone who has already ordered, we contact them directly rather than relying on them revisiting the page.

There is no public corrections log. One would be a better answer than this and ARP does not keep one, so the honest statement is that this page describes how a correction is made and not where you can go and read a list of past ones.

Conflicts of interest

ARP sells the materials it writes about. That is the conflict, it is not incidental to the site, and no editorial policy makes it go away. Every guide, product page and comparison here is published by a business that earns money when you buy something. Read it that way, and check the sources.

What ARP does about it, in concrete terms:

• No customer ratings, star scores or reviews are published anywhere on this site, because none have been collected. The site is built so that adding review or rating markup fails the build rather than quietly shipping — an unearned rating is the cheapest false signal in commerce and the easiest one to add by accident.
• Stock states, prices and delivery costs are read from one record each and rendered live, never typed into prose. A page cannot go on advertising a price or an availability that has changed.
• Where a batch certificate exists it is published as the laboratory issued it, opened as the document itself rather than retyped, and the purity figure shown beside it is the one printed on that report for that exact strength. Where no certificate has been published, nothing is substituted for it — no placeholder document, no report borrowed from another strength, and no figure invented to fill the gap. What you get instead is the status, said plainly: the product page states that no report is published for that line or strength yet, and the certificate library lists every product and strength either way, marking each one published or coming soon. An absence is disclosed, never disguised.
• What testing establishes is described narrowly. A purity or identity result is evidence about the contents of a batch. It is not evidence of safety, of effectiveness, or of anything about an outcome, and it is not presented as though it were.

What this policy does not cover

Everything ARP supplies is for in vitro research purposes only. Nothing on this site is a recommendation to use any compound, in any way, in a person or an animal, and no page here should be read as advice about health, treatment or diagnosis. That is a limit on what the content is for, and it is not something the editorial process changes.

This policy also does not extend to material published elsewhere. A paper, database entry, registry record or laboratory report ARP links to is that organisation's work, published under their own standards, and citing it is not a claim that we have audited how they produced it.

Changes to this policy

We may update this policy as the way content is produced here changes. The version on this page is always the current one, and it describes the process that is actually running rather than one we intend to adopt.