The reference, not the storefront.
AminoCatalog is an independent, research-use encyclopedia of peptides paired with a vendor directory that takes integrity seriously. Our job is to make the research legible — and to make choosing a vendor less of a gamble.
Mission
Why AminoCatalog exists
We want AminoCatalog to be the first place someone reaches for when they get serious about peptides — the way Wikipedia is the default for general knowledge and Drugs.com is the default for prescription medicine. That means earning trust the slow way: depth, citations, and a clear line between what the research shows and what it doesn't.
Most peptide information on the open web falls into three buckets: vendor blog posts with an obvious commercial bias, scattered forum threads full of hard-won but hard-to-verify wisdom, and academic papers that are accurate but inaccessible. AminoCatalog occupies the empty space between them — structured, scannable, citation-backed content with no commercial bias on the encyclopedia side, paired with a vendor layer that is transparent about its commercial relationships.
To us, “authoritative” is not a tone of voice. It is a process: name your sources, show your work, say when the evidence is thin, and keep the page current. The rest of this page is that process, written down.
How the site works
Built on four commitments
Editorial encyclopedia
Every peptide entry is researched from primary sources, cited inline, and checked against an editorial checklist before it publishes.
Transparent ranking
Vendors are ordered by one composite score built from five signals, with weights you can audit live on our methodology page.
Moderated reviews
Real reviews from verified users, screened by moderators. Vendors can respond, but they cannot buy, edit, or delete them.
Editorial firewall
No pay-to-play on the encyclopedia. Vendor spending never changes a peptide page or the claims inside it.
Editorial process
How we research and write
Every encyclopedia page moves through the same six steps. None of them are skippable, and the last one never ends.
- 1
Source selection
We start from primary research — peer-reviewed studies, regulatory filings, and manufacturer documentation. Forum anecdotes and vendor marketing are never sources for an encyclopedia claim.
- 2
Drafting
A writer drafts each entry against a fixed template: mechanism, reported benefits, reported side effects, dosing discussed in the literature, and storage. Plain language first, technical terms explained.
- 3
Inline citation
Every substantive claim links to its source at the point it is made. Where the evidence is preliminary or conflicting, the entry says so instead of rounding up to certainty.
- 4
Editorial review
A second reader checks each draft against our checklist, and anything touching legal or safety framing gets a dedicated review before it goes live.
- 5
Publication
Entries publish with a visible last-reviewed date, so you always know how current the page in front of you actually is.
- 6
Scheduled re-review
Every page is revisited at least every six months, and our dashboard flags anything overdue. Science and regulation move; the encyclopedia is maintained, not frozen.
Standards
The standards we hold every page to
- Lead with plain language, and define technical terms the first time they appear instead of assuming them.
- Cite primary sources inline so any claim can be checked at its origin, not buried in a footnote pile.
- Be honest about uncertainty: when the research is thin or conflicting, the page says so plainly.
- Report what the literature discusses; never frame a dose as a protocol or a recommendation.
- Keep research-use framing consistent in the wording itself, not only in the disclaimers.
- Treat reviews as the readers' voice, not the site's — we host them, we do not author them.
- Maintain a firewall between the editorial side and the commercial, vendor side of the business.
- Never imply equivalence between a research compound and an approved prescription medication.
The wording carries the framing. We write “reported in research,” not “known to”; “discussed in the literature at ranges of,” not “a typical dose is.” The distinction is not pedantry — it keeps a bright line between summarizing research and giving medical advice.
Ranking
How we rank vendors
Every vendor carries a single composite score from 0 to 100 that drives ordering across the directory and every peptide page's vendor table. It is built from five signals with weights we publish and audit in the open.
Bayesian rating
Average stars, pulled toward the site-wide mean when a vendor has few reviews so one rave does not outrank a long track record.
Review volume
Total approved reviews on a logarithmic curve — the first ten matter more than the next ten.
Recency
Recent reviews count more than old ones, with a configurable half-life (180 days by default).
Response rate
Whether the vendor replies to critical reviews within two weeks, a proxy for accountability.
Trust signals
Verified business documents, paid tier, account age past six months, and a clean flag history.
Paid tiers earn a small, capped lift — a featured vendor with weak reviews still loses to a free vendor with strong ones. Read the full methodology, with live weights →
Review integrity
Reviews you can actually trust
A well-run review history is the one thing a vendor cannot fabricate, so we protect it harder than anything else on the site.
- Reviews come only from registered, email-verified users. Vendors cannot review themselves, and authors cannot review content they published.
- Automated checks run first — length, profanity, link limits, and spam heuristics. New accounts enter a manual queue; established, trusted accounts publish faster.
- A moderator confirms each held review is genuine commentary, not promotion or defamation, then approves it, rejects it with a reason the author can see, or holds it for more information.
- Vendors can respond in public and can flag a review with a stated reason. Flagged reviews stay visible while we adjudicate, unless they cross a hard line such as doxxing, slurs, or clear defamation.
- Every removal carries a written justification recorded in an audit log. We do not pay for reviews, and vendors cannot buy, edit, or delete them.
Independence
How we stay independent — and how we make money
A reference is only as trustworthy as its incentives. Here is exactly how ours work, so you can judge for yourself.
What funds us
Vendor subscriptions — free, Verified, and Featured tiers — plus clearly labeled placements. Never the encyclopedia.
What money cannot buy
No vendor can pay to add, change, or remove a peptide page, a claim inside one, or an organic ranking position.
What is always labeled
Featured placements are marked wherever they appear, and the paid-tier ranking lift is small and capped.
Outbound links to vendors may be tracked so we can report clicks — but tracking a click never changes a vendor's rank or a page's content. When a relationship is commercial, we disclose it rather than hide it.
Scope
What we are — and what we aren't
What AminoCatalog is
- An independent, research-use reference for peptides and related compounds.
- A curated directory built to help you compare vendors before you buy from them elsewhere.
- A home for moderated reviews written by real, verified users.
What AminoCatalog is not
- A pharmacy, manufacturer, distributor, or marketplace — we do not sell, ship, or hold inventory of any compound.
- A medical, legal, or veterinary advice service. No professional relationship is formed by using the site.
- An endorser — a listing, badge, rating, or ranking is never a guarantee that a vendor or product is safe, legal, or effective.
Accuracy
Corrections, sourcing, and citing us
Found an error?
Tell us. Send the page URL, the claim in question, and a better source if you have one. Substantiated fixes are made and reflected in the page's last-reviewed date.
Our sourcing
We prefer peer-reviewed and primary sources, link them at the point of the claim, and date them so you can weigh how current the evidence is.
Citing AminoCatalog
You are welcome to cite a page. Link to its canonical URL and include the last-reviewed date so readers land on the current version.
The rules behind all of this live in our content policy, terms, and privacy policy. Common questions are answered in the FAQ.
Team
Who's behind AminoCatalog
The team
AminoCatalog is operated from Nevada by a small, independent team, and was founded and is edited by Rob Sanders. Entries are drafted and checked with outside contributors — subject-matter reviewers, copy editors, and a legal reviewer — engaged by topic, and credited on the pages they touch. We keep the team deliberately small so the editorial line stays clear and the firewall stays intact.
Reach us
For general questions, vendor inquiries, press, legal contact, or a correction, use the contact page. Run a peptide company? You can apply to be listed.
Start exploring
Dig into the encyclopedia, compare vendors on the directory, or see exactly how the ranking is calculated.