Corrections Policy

If you find an error on PeptideStacks.co.uk — a misquoted study, an out-of-date regulatory status, a broken citation, an inaccurate claim — we want to hear from you.

How to report an error

Use our contact form and include:

• The page URL.
• The specific claim or sentence in question.
• What you believe is incorrect.
• If possible, a citation or source supporting the correction (PubMed PMID, DOI, regulatory document URL).

How corrections are reviewed

1. We acknowledge the report.
2. An editor checks the cited evidence and the page text against it.
3. If the correction is factual and supported, the page is updated and the change recorded.
4. If the correction is a scientific disagreement rather than a factual error, we may add nuance to the page or link to the conflicting source — but we will not necessarily change the underlying claim.
5. The page’s last updated and last reviewed dates are refreshed.

Public corrections log

Material factual corrections are logged in our public evidence changelog with a short description of what changed and why.

Factual correction vs scientific disagreement

A factual correction is something verifiable: a wrong year, a misattributed paper, a miscalculated value, a misstated regulatory position. We act on these quickly.

A scientific disagreement is harder. Two reasonable researchers can read the same body of evidence and disagree about what it implies. Where this happens, our default is to broaden the page — describing both readings and the methodological reasons they diverge — rather than choosing one.

What we will not change in response to feedback

• The site’s position that we do not publish self-administration protocols.
• Conservative regulatory framing for unapproved compounds.
• The hierarchy of evidence: human evidence outweighs preclinical.