Medical & Scientific Advisory Board
Peptide information should be held to a clinical standard. This page explains how WikiPeps reviews what it publishes — and who signs off — so you can judge our work for yourself.
What is the WikiPeps Advisory Board?
The Advisory Board is a group of credentialed clinicians and researchers who review WikiPeps education content for clinical accuracy before it is published and on a recurring schedule afterward. They sign off on what we say — they do not write it, and they do not turn education into medical advice.
The peptide information landscape is full of forum lore, vendor-sponsored claims, and confident misinformation. The antidote is not a louder opinion — it's a verifiable process. An expert review layer is how we keep our guides anchored to evidence and catch the kind of subtle error that only a specialist would notice.
Everything on WikiPeps remains informational and educational only. Review by a clinician improves accuracy; it never converts our content into a diagnosis, a prescription, a recommended dose, or instructions to obtain or use any substance.
Why does expert review matter?
Because the cost of a wrong sentence is real. Errors in reconstitution math, sterility, or contraindications can put readers at risk. Expert sign-off adds a second set of qualified eyes and makes our claims accountable to people who can be held to a professional standard.
Accuracy
Specialists catch errors a generalist editor can't — drug interactions, edge-case contraindications, and overstated evidence.
Accountability
A named, credentialed reviewer attaches their reputation to the content. Attribution makes claims checkable, not anonymous.
Evidence discipline
Reviewers hold us to the literature: weak evidence is labeled as weak, and anecdote is never dressed up as data.
How does WikiPeps review its content?
Every guide moves through five stages: a sourced draft, internal editorial review, expert clinical sign-off, a dated publish, and a scheduled re-review. Content is not marked “medically reviewed” unless a credentialed board member has signed off.
- 1
Draft
A writer drafts the guide from primary literature, manufacturer documentation, and labeled community field notes. Sources are cited inline.
- 2
Editorial review
An editor checks structure, plain-English clarity, compliance language, and that every claim is supported by a citation — flagging anything that reads like advice rather than education.
- 3
Expert sign-off
A credentialed board member in the relevant specialty reviews for clinical accuracy and safety, then signs off. Their name and credentials are attached to the published page.
- 4
Dated publish
The page goes live with a visible 'last reviewed' date and the reviewer's byline, so readers know exactly when it was checked and by whom.
- 5
Scheduled re-review
Each page is queued for periodic re-review and is revisited sooner when new evidence emerges or a reader reports an error. Updates are dated and visible.
Until a guide has completed expert sign-off, it carries no reviewer byline — we never imply a review that did not happen.
Are reviewers editorially independent?
Yes. Reviewers assess content against the evidence, not against our commercial interests. WikiPeps makes money only by selling injection-supply kits — never peptides — so no reviewer is ever asked to shade a guide toward a product.
Conflict-of-interest policy (summary)
- Board members disclose relevant financial, professional, and research interests before reviewing.
- Anyone with a material conflict on a given topic recuses from reviewing that content.
- We do not accept payment, advertising, sponsorship, or affiliate commissions from anyone in the peptide supply chain.
- No one — internal or external — can pay to place, alter, or remove content.
- Reviewers are not asked to endorse products and their sign-off applies to accuracy and safety, not commerce.
Full details live in our editorial policy. If any of this ever changes, we'll say so at the top of the affected content.
Who is on the board?
Our advisory board is forming.
We're recruiting credentialed clinicians and researchers — endocrinology, pharmacology, sports medicine, internal medicine, and peptide research — to review our content to a clinical standard. We will list each member here only after we verify their credentials and they consent to be named. We will never publish fabricated reviewers.
Join the board or nominate an expert
Are you a clinician or researcher who wants peptide education done responsibly? Help us hold this work to a clinical standard. Know someone who should be here? Nominate them.
Include credentials and a link we can verify.