Send the Claim With Its Context

Editorial correspondence

DQ Peptides welcomes notes about citation accuracy, study attribution, unclear language, broken reference links, or places where a conclusion has outrun its evidence. The most useful message identifies the page, quotes the passage in question, and names the source or study detail that appears to require review.

Correspondence may be addressed to editorial@dqpeptides.com. That mailbox is framed for editorial review; it is not a clinical service, vendor desk, laboratory support line, or route to personalized advice. Messages asking for diagnosis, treatment selection, human dosing, reconstitution, sourcing, or product authentication cannot be answered.

For proposed corrections, the desk looks for the same elements used in the site scorecard: study design, comparator, sample, endpoint, and whether the finding has been reproduced. A link to a primary publication is more useful than a promotional summary. Anecdotal experience may be relevant to how a topic is discussed, but it cannot silently become a clinical finding.

New-study notices are also welcome when they concern one of the four compound files. Inclusion is not automatic: relevance, source quality, and the degree to which a publication changes the existing evidence picture all matter. Press releases, vendor pages, and unsourced screenshots are not substitutes for a primary record. Financial or professional interests connected to a suggested paper should be disclosed so the editorial context remains visible.

No response time is promised. Submissions may be reviewed for future editorial updates, and factual corrections are prioritized over requests to strengthen marketing claims. The aim is simple: make the public record on these pages more exact, one well-supported sentence at a time.