Skip to main content
Oxford Research Peptides
SCIENTIFIC PROCESS

Research Methodology

The scientific process that sits behind every editorial page: how sources are found, appraised, cited and graded, and how scheduled re-audits keep content current.

  1. 01
    Scope definition

    Each page starts with a defined scope: subject compound / mechanism / methodology, question the page answers, target reader (laboratory researcher) and out-of-scope claims (clinical dosing, therapeutic outcomes, human-use recommendations).

  2. 02
    Literature search

    Primary databases: PubMed / MEDLINE, Europe PMC and Google Scholar. Secondary: DrugBank, ChEMBL, UniProt and receptor / pathway databases where relevant. Search strings, date ranges and databases used are recorded for reviewer audit.

  3. 03
    Source appraisal

    Sources are appraised for study design, sample size, control adequacy, replication, funding disclosures and whether the finding is primary or secondary. Preprints are labelled explicitly and treated with additional caution.

  4. 04
    Evidence grading

    Each substantive claim is graded against the site-wide evidence hierarchy (Strong → Conflicting) and, where relevant, individual studies are tagged with a study-quality grade (A–D or Insufficient).

  5. 05
    Citation capture

    Every cited source is captured as a structured record — authors, year, title, journal, volume, issue, pages, DOI, PMID — and stored in the shared citation registry so it can be referenced consistently across pages.

  6. 06
    Scientific review

    A scientific reviewer independently checks that each claim is supported by the cited source, that gradings are defensible, and that the page maintains research-use framing. Reviewer may require revisions before approval.

  7. 07
    Scheduled re-audit

    Approved pages enter the review cadence defined on the editorial standards page. At each re-audit the search is repeated, new evidence is incorporated, and the revision history is updated.

EVIDENCE HIERARCHY

How claims are graded

  • Strong evidence
    Multiple independent published sources — typically including well-controlled in-vitro or animal studies — converge on the same finding.
  • Moderate evidence
    Consistent findings from a small number of studies with acceptable methodology, but limited independent replication.
  • Limited evidence
    Few studies are available, sample sizes are small, or the methodology has meaningful limitations.
  • Preliminary evidence
    Early-stage or exploratory work — pilot studies, mechanistic hints or single-lab reports awaiting replication.
  • Insufficient evidence
    Available literature does not currently support a defensible conclusion in either direction.
  • Conflicting evidence
    Independent sources report conflicting findings; the field has not yet resolved the disagreement.
CITATION POLICY

Citation policy

  • Default citation style: AMA (American Medical Association).
  • Inline citations are numeric superscripts linked to the reference list on the same page.
  • Every reference carries structured metadata (authors, year, title, journal, DOI or PMID) so it can be verified independently.
  • Preprints and non-peer-reviewed sources are labelled explicitly.
  • Secondary sources (reviews, textbooks) are cited only where appropriate; primary sources are preferred for evidence claims.