Method
How we review research
Peptide marketing leans heavily on studies most people never read. Our job is to read them carefully and tell you what they actually support — including where they fall short.
Last updated July 5, 2026
The questions we ask of every study
- What type of study is it? Lab-dish (in-vitro), animal, or human? Each supports very different conclusions.
- How big and how long? Small, short studies are hypothesis-generating, not definitive.
- Who ran or funded it? Manufacturer involvement doesn’t disqualify a study, but it’s context we disclose.
- What was actually measured? The appearance of skin is a valid cosmetic endpoint; we don’t inflate it into medical proof.
- Does the delivery match a real product? Injected or high-concentration lab conditions rarely reflect a serum on your face.
Our research-summary template
Every research review on this site follows the same structure, so nothing convenient gets left out:
- Paper / body of work and study type
- What was tested
- Main findings
- Limitations
- What it does not prove
- Practical relevance for skincare
How we phrase evidence
We deliberately avoid “science proves this works.” We use calibrated language: “a small study reported,” “evidence is promising but limited,” “better-studied than most cosmetic peptides” — statements that reflect the real strength of the data.
Our bias, stated openly
When in doubt, we under-claim. We would rather a reader be pleasantly surprised by a product than misled into expecting a result the evidence can’t support.