Project:Verifiability

Readers must be able to check that material comes from a source that says it.

Verifiability is the first of PeptidePedia Wiki's three sourcing policies, alongside no original research and neutral point of view. Material on this wiki must be attributable to a published source that a reader can locate. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth: an editor's private certainty that a claim is correct is not a reason to publish it.

The policy exists because of what this subject area is. Much of what circulates about research peptides is unsourced, and a great deal of it is repeated confidently enough to look sourced. A reference work in this field is only useful if every non-obvious sentence can be traced.

Any of the following requires an inline citation:

• a numeric claim of any kind — a dose, a purity, an incidence, a half-life, a price;
• a claim about what a trial found, what a regulator decided, or what a label says;
• a claim about a supplier's history, capacity, certification or testing record;
• any statement likely to be challenged, and every statement about a living person.

Uncontroversial definitional statements in a lead may be sourced by the article body rather than individually. Nothing else may be.

In descending order of preference: peer-reviewed secondary literature (systematic reviews, meta-analyses, authoritative reviews); primary trial publications; regulatory documents (labelling, assessment reports, safety communications); pharmacopoeial and standards documents; company filings and registry records for facts about organisations; reputable trade and technical press.

A supplier's own marketing material is a source for what the supplier claims about itself and for nothing else, and must be attributed in-text when used at all.

Forum posts, chat logs, social media, and unattributed screenshots are not usable sources for article content. Neither is another wiki, including this one: articles may not cite each other.

A photograph of a certificate of analysis is a primary document of uncertain provenance. It may be described as such — "a certificate circulated in 2025 reported…" — but it does not establish that the material tested was what the label said, or that the report is genuine. See Test report forgery.

PeptidePedia Wiki does aggregate self-reported test results, and those aggregates appear in supplier articles. They are weak evidence and must be labelled as such at every point of use, with the sample size and the collection period stated. Wording of the form "community-submitted reports, n = 214, 2024–2026 (self-reported)" is the required minimum. An aggregate of self-selected submissions cannot support a claim about a supplier's overall output, and articles must not imply otherwise.

Unsourced material may be tagged with {{cn}}, moved to the talk page, or removed. Removal is not vandalism, and the burden of restoring it lies with the editor who wishes to include it. Persistently reinserting unsourced claims about a supplier is treated as promotional editing under Project:Conflict of interest.