Our editorial standards
How we research, grade, review and correct everything we publish, so you can judge our work for yourself.
Sources we rely on
We build every profile from primary and authoritative sources, in this order of preference:
- Peer-reviewed research, especially randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews (via PubMed and PubMed Central)
- Official records: PubChem for molecular data, ClinicalTrials.gov for registered trials, and the U.S. FDA for regulatory status
- Reputable reporting from established news and trade outlets, used for current events and always linked
Our standard is to connect scientific claims to specific primary or authoritative sources. Citation coverage is being improved; a search link, editorial date or source list alone does not show that every sentence has been verified. We do not use sales claims as proof of clinical benefit.
How we grade evidence
Each compound is placed on one of four levels, based on the strongest human evidence available for the use being discussed:
Cell and animal studies only2 · Early human
Small pharmacology or safety studies3 · Controlled trials
Randomized trials with clinical endpoints4 · Approved use
Regulator-approved for a specific indication
A higher level means stronger evidence exists for something, not that a compound is safe or effective for every use. Level 3 can include trials that found no benefit.
How content is produced and reviewed
Pages are prepared for VALREXA using source research and software tools, including AI, to help gather information and draft text. Source links and editorial dates help readers check the material; they are not proof that every claim has been verified or independently expert-reviewed.
Current scientific review status. VALREXA does not currently have a scientific advisory board. Existing author or editorial-review credits do not by themselves indicate independent scientific review or clinical validation. If independent scientific review is added in the future, it will be labeled separately with the reviewer's relevant credentials, the specific material reviewed and the review date. A review of one page would not constitute endorsement of the entire website.
Updates and corrections
Science and regulations change. We review profiles regularly and when significant new evidence or regulatory action appears, and we update the “last reviewed” date. Factual errors are corrected promptly; significant corrections are noted on the page. Report an error to contact@valrexa.com.
Independence
VALREXA does not sell peptides, supplements or medical products. Sponsors and affiliates never review, edit or approve our content, and cannot pay to change an evidence grade. See how we make money.
Citing VALREXA
Every profile includes a ready-made citation with its last-reviewed date. For academic work, we recommend citing the primary studies we link alongside our page, and recording the date you accessed it.
What we don't do
We do not give medical advice, dosing protocols or sourcing recommendations, and we do not publish before-and-after or testimonial claims.
A scoped scientific-review process
Inviting someone to review content is not a completed review. The following process is prepared for voluntary, limited contributions; no acceptance, completed review or endorsement is implied.
- Agree on one page and scope. Record the URL, version date, relevant subject area and which sections or questions the person can assess. Credentials and expertise must fit the material.
- Check the claims and evidence. Ask about factual errors, source quality, missing limitations, experimental model, overall versus subgroup findings and unsupported clinical or regulatory conclusions.
- Record and resolve corrections. Keep the feedback and a change log. Request clarification or recheck of material revisions where necessary; unresolved scientific issues must not be hidden behind a review label.
- Confirm interests and permission. Record relevant conflicts, including authorship, patents or commercial interests. A research author's contribution is not independent validation of their own findings. Obtain written permission for exact credit wording, credentials and any affiliation; do not imply university endorsement.
- Publish only the actual review scope. Credit a completed review only on the covered version/material, with its date and limitations. Later material changes need a new check before the old review can be represented as covering them.
A page review is not review of the whole website, a course, its assessments or another page. It does not create accreditation or a professional certification. Unreviewed material remains labeled accordingly; no faculty names are displayed here as reviewers merely because outreach was sent.