Medical & Scientific Review Policy
Understand our proposed scientific review framework, attribution standards and review-status disclosures. External review is identified only when documented.
This page sets out our publishing commitments. External medical review is a separate process; check the review status on each article.
What medical review means here
Medical review is an assessment of an article’s clinical interpretation by an appropriately qualified, identifiable professional. It is distinct from proofreading, literature retrieval, and checking that a citation matches a statement.
This policy describes the intended review standard. External medical review is pending verification unless a page names its verified reviewer and records a completed review date. Readers should use the status shown on the individual article.
Review status and publication labels
Most pages currently show Scientific review pending (or Review pending): a documented external review has not been completed. Editorial verification means the content has undergone an editorial source and accuracy check; it does not establish external clinical approval. No page should be read as medically reviewed unless it names the reviewer and review date. None of these labels is a clinical endorsement.
A completed medical review must be attributable to a real reviewer, a specific article version, and a recorded date. If substantial content changes after review, the previous review must not silently be represented as approval of the revised material.
Reviewer qualifications and scope
The reviewer’s professional training and experience should match the clinical question. Relevant backgrounds may include medicine, pharmacy, clinical pharmacology, endocrinology, or another specialty appropriate to the article. A credential alone does not establish expertise in every peptide topic.
Before displaying a reviewer’s name, the publication should verify identity and professional credentials using an appropriate official register or institutional record, obtain permission to publish the attribution, and document the scope of the work.
What a reviewer evaluates
Review should examine whether clinical claims are supported, whether findings apply to the stated population, and whether uncertainty is communicated fairly. The reviewer checks the distinction between mechanism, surrogate outcomes, and outcomes that matter to patients.
The assessment should also cover presentation of adverse events, important limitations, approved indications, and experimental status. Any discussion of clinical practice must distinguish published research from individualized treatment advice.
Conflicts and independence
Reviewers should disclose relevant financial and professional interests before an assignment, including relationships with manufacturers, vendors, clinics, or study sponsors. Relevant disclosures should accompany completed review attribution.
A conflict may require another reviewer or exclusion from an assignment. Reviewers cannot purchase coverage, control conclusions on behalf of a sponsor, or use an attribution to advertise a service.
Resolving disagreements
When an editor and reviewer disagree, the disputed claim should be traced to the original source and its limitations. A contested clinical conclusion should be narrowed, qualified, or held from publication until the basis is clear.
Medical review does not convert incomplete evidence into established evidence. If the literature remains uncertain, the article should communicate that uncertainty rather than imply consensus.
Re-review and reader questions
Substantive changes to clinical interpretation, safety discussion, or regulatory context should trigger consideration of another review. A correction may also require a reviewer to reassess the affected section and associated summaries.
For a concern about review attribution or a clinical statement, contact the editorial team with the page URL and the specific issue. This process reviews publication content and does not provide individual medical consultations.