Standards · Editorial
Most peptide brands publish marketing copy and call it research. Novo publishes literature reviews, names the reviewers, cites primary sources, and corrects errors in public. This page is the standard the editorial team is held to.
Until our formulation chemist is publicly named in Q2 2026, every article is bylined "Novo Research Team" — a working group of three contributors with backgrounds in pharmacology, clinical research writing, and professional translation. The named scientist will be added to this page on reveal, and existing bylines retroactively attributed where appropriate.
Every article is reviewed by at least one team member who did not draft it, with a final pharmacological-claim sweep before publish. Articles touching dosing math, contraindications, or pharmacology citations are reviewed twice. Reviewer initials appear in the article footer. We do not publish without sign-off.
Primary literature only for mechanism and outcome claims — PubMed, Cochrane reviews, EMA/Health Canada labels, peer-reviewed journals. Secondary sources are allowed only for industry context. Every numeric claim cites a paper or a labelled product insert. We do not write "studies show" without a study link.
Every article carries a "last reviewed" date. Cluster articles are reviewed quarterly; pillar references annually with a full literature refresh. Material updates trigger a "What changed" note at the top of the article. Articles whose claims no longer hold are unpublished and replaced — never silently re-edited.
Errors of fact are corrected within 72 hours of report. The original error and the correction are logged in a public changelog at /standards/corrections. We do not silently edit. Readers can flag issues at editorial@novopharma.cc or via the in-article "flag this" link.
Novo sells the compounds it writes about. Articles that name a product Novo stocks carry a disclosure block. Reviewers do not stand to gain from a specific product being recommended; comparative articles disclose the comparison methodology and are reviewed by a team member with no purchase-side incentive.
Marketing copy disguised as research. Dosing recommendations as medical advice — we publish protocol literature reviews; we do not prescribe. Testimonials before they have launch parity with COA proof. Claims unsupported by published literature, even if community-popular. AI-generated content without human review and citation insertion.
Novo content is written for Canadian researchers and adults aged 21 and over. We do not publish US-targeted content. French versions are translated by a professional native translator, not by machine. Health Canada has stated peptides without a DIN are unauthorized — we link this directly and do not obscure it.
Email editorial@novopharma.cc with the article URL, the specific claim, and your source. Acknowledged within 48 hours; resolution within 72 hours for factual errors, longer for interpretive disagreements. Anonymous flags are accepted; named flags receive a reply with the resolution.