Corrections & Reassessment Policy
How to report an error and how Inside Peptides handles corrections, source updates, reassessment and notices of material changes.
This page sets out our publishing commitments. External medical review is a separate process; check the review status on each article.
Why we publish corrections
A reliable reference must be able to change when a statement is wrong or the underlying evidence changes. We distinguish an error in our published account from a new finding that changes a previously reasonable interpretation. Both can require a clear reader-facing explanation.
This policy applies to article text, headlines, evidence labels, references, tables, captions, illustrations, and review attributions. Correcting the body alone is insufficient if a misleading claim remains in the summary.
How to report an issue
Use the contact form (topic “Correction or source concern”) or email contact@insidepeptides.org with the subject “Correction”. Include the page URL, the exact statement or section, why you believe it needs attention, and a link or identifier for supporting evidence. A DOI, PMID, registry number, or official regulator document is particularly helpful.
You may report factual errors, misread statistics, mismatched citations, missing limitations, outdated regulatory wording, accessibility problems, or questionable reviewer attribution. Please avoid sending private patient information.
Triage and assessment
The editorial team should first assess the potential effect on reader understanding. Possible safety implications, inaccurate approval claims, invented references, or unsupported clinical conclusions deserve priority over cosmetic edits.
The assessment compares the statement with its source, checks whether the problem appears elsewhere on the site, and considers whether an interim clarification or removal is needed. We do not promise a fixed resolution time for every report; complex questions may require additional evidence.
Minor edits and clarifications
Spelling, formatting, broken links, and wording that leaves the scientific meaning unchanged may be fixed directly. A clarification that materially changes how a reasonable reader interprets a claim should receive a visible note.
Dates should reflect meaningful editorial work. A cosmetic change should not be used to suggest that the underlying scientific evidence received a new full review.
Substantive corrections
An incorrect study population, effect size, trial outcome, approval statement, or evidence classification is a substantive issue. The corrected page should explain what was wrong, what changed, the date of the change, and whether the conclusion was affected.
The editor should also update affected summaries, comparisons, and related pages. The correction notice should be understandable without access to the original wording and should not unnecessarily repeat a harmful or misleading claim.
New evidence and reassessment
New studies and official updates may justify a revised account even where the previous article was accurate at publication. An evidence update should identify the new source, describe its relevance, and explain whether it strengthens, weakens, or leaves the prior interpretation unchanged.
A retracted or corrected source requires a fresh check of every claim relying on it. If the remaining evidence cannot support the conclusion, the conclusion should be changed or withdrawn.
Withdrawal and unresolved disputes
Where an article cannot be responsibly corrected in place, it may be withdrawn or temporarily replaced with an explanatory notice. A withdrawal should state the reason without presenting the original claim as still reliable.
Reasonable differences in interpretation are not automatically factual errors. When disagreement remains, the publication should explain the uncertainty and assess credible counterevidence rather than suppress it.
Correction notices and follow-up
A useful notice records the correction date, affected material, nature of the issue, corrected interpretation, and supporting reference where appropriate. For example: “The study was conducted in animals, not people; the summary and evidence description have been corrected.”
Reports are assessed on their evidence, regardless of whether they come from a clinician, researcher, or general reader. A request for favorable coverage or commercial placement does not qualify as a scientific correction.