Editorial Policy

Editorial Policy

RUO Report is an independent, research-use-only (RUO) publication that profiles, summarizes, and reviews peptide research and the vendors and literature surrounding it. We exist to help researchers, students, and other technical readers navigate published information more efficiently. We are a publisher and reviewer only — we do not sell peptides, fulfill orders, or act as a vendor, pharmacy, or clinical authority.

This policy describes how we evaluate evidence, source our claims, use AI tooling, vet contributors, disclose commercial relationships, and correct mistakes. It applies to all content published on ruoreport.com.

Evidence Levels and How They Are Assigned

Where RUO Report characterizes the state of research on a topic, we apply a five-tier evidence rating. These tiers describe the quantity, quality, and consistency of the published literature we reviewed — they are not endorsements, safety findings, efficacy claims, or guidance to use any compound.

• Strong — Multiple independent, well-designed studies (including human or robust replicated models where applicable) reach consistent conclusions, with few credible contradictions.
• Moderate — Several studies point in the same direction, but the body of work is smaller, partially preclinical, or shows some inconsistency or methodological limits.
• Limited — Only a small number of studies exist, or findings come from narrow models, small samples, or designs that constrain confidence.
• Preliminary — Early-stage or exploratory work only (e.g., in vitro, single animal studies, pilot data); conclusions are speculative and unconfirmed.
• Insufficient — Published evidence is absent, too sparse, or too low-quality to characterize meaningfully.

A rating is assigned by the writer based on the cited sources, then confirmed by a reviewer. The rating reflects the literature available at the stated review date and may change as new research appears. Each rating links to the specific sources that justify it; a rating is never asserted without citations.

Citation Standards

Every factual claim about research is tied to an identifiable, verifiable source — typically a peer-reviewed study, a preprint clearly labeled as such, a regulatory document, or a primary dataset. Our standards:

• No fabricated sources. We never invent citations, DOIs, author names, journals, or quotations. A citation that cannot be located and verified is removed, not published.
• We prefer primary literature over secondary summaries, and we identify the source type (e.g., in vitro, animal, human, review) so readers can weigh it.
• Where a claim is the author’s interpretation rather than a stated finding, it is labeled as analysis or opinion.
• Vendor reviews rely on observable, checkable facts (e.g., published third-party testing, stated policies, documented user reports) and clearly separate fact from impression.

AI-Assisted Content Policy

RUO Report may use AI tools to assist with drafting, summarizing, formatting, and research triage. AI is a tool, not an author. Every AI-assisted piece is subject to mandatory human oversight:

• A human editor reviews all AI-assisted content before publication.
• Every citation produced or suggested by an AI tool is independently verified against the original source by a human. Unverifiable references are deleted.
• Evidence ratings, conclusions, and any compliance-sensitive language are set by humans, not by a model.
• We do not publish AI output as fact without verification, and we do not allow AI tools to generate sources, data, or quotations.

Author and Reviewer Standards

Content is produced by named contributors and checked by a reviewer with relevant subject familiarity. Authors are expected to work from primary sources, disclose limitations, and avoid overstatement. Reviewers confirm that claims match their citations, that the evidence rating is defensible, that compliance language is intact, and that no medical or usage guidance has crept in. Each entry records a last-reviewed date and the reviewing editor.

Updates and Corrections

We treat accuracy as ongoing. Entries are periodically revisited, and material updates are reflected in the last-reviewed date. When we learn of an error, we correct it promptly and transparently:

• Substantive corrections (those that change a fact, figure, source, or rating) are noted with a brief correction line and date.
• Minor fixes (typos, formatting, broken links) may be made without a notice.
• To report a suspected error, contact us at [contact email]. We aim to acknowledge credible reports and act on confirmed issues without undue delay.

Conflict-of-Interest and Commercial Disclosures

RUO Report is monetized in part through affiliate relationships: we may earn a commission when readers click certain outbound links or purchase from third-party vendors. These relationships do not determine our ratings, reviews, or conclusions. Affiliate and other commercial relationships are disclosed, and editorial coverage is kept independent of any commercial arrangement. Contributors must disclose any financial or personal interest in a vendor, product, or study they cover, and may be recused where a conflict cannot be managed.

What RUO Report Does Not Do

• We do not provide medical, clinical, dosing, or usage advice, and nothing here should be read as such.
• We do not sell, supply, broker, or fulfill peptides or any other product.
• We do not tell readers to buy, use, ingest, or administer any compound; all content is for research and educational reference only.
• We do not make safety or efficacy guarantees, and we do not endorse vendors as a substitute for a reader’s own due diligence.
• We do not publish content that misrepresents research-use-only materials as approved for human or veterinary use.

Questions

Questions about this policy, corrections, or disclosures may be directed to [contact email]. This policy is governed by the laws of [Governing State] and is maintained by [Company Entity]. It is a working draft and is subject to review by qualified counsel before reliance.