Evidence first
We start with lot records, laboratory reports, methods, policies and dated source material.
About Peptide Due Diligence
Clearer research. Better supplier questions.
PDD compares supplier claims with the documents we can actually find, then explains the results in plain language.
Same standards
Affiliate relationships do not change what we check or which suppliers we cover.
Corrections welcome
Important updates receive visible dates, and documented corrections are reviewed.
Who writes the articles
Articles are written and edited under the name Rowan Mercer, PDD Editor. Rowan Mercer is an editorial pen name used to keep the byline consistent and the publication brand-led. It does not represent invented degrees, licenses, employment history or professional credentials.
Accountability comes from dated sources, public disclosures, a documented review method and a correction channel—not from an anonymous list of credentials.
How we review information
We save the public pages and reports available on the review date, separate documented facts from supplier statements, and clearly label anything we could not confirm. We link the source whenever practical.
What we cover
We cover certificates of analysis, testing methods, laboratory information, supplier transparency, public pricing, business policies and published peptide research.
What a review does not prove
A document review is not a laboratory retest, product authentication, safety decision, regulatory approval or blanket endorsement. “Not found” means the public records we reviewed did not establish the detail; it does not prove the supplier lacks it.
Affiliate relationships and corrections
Affiliate status does not determine coverage, findings or default placement. Important corrections are dated and reviewed under the same standards.
Contact the editor
Questions can be sent to editorial@peptideduediligence.com. Documented corrections should be sent to corrections@peptideduediligence.com.