Corrections Policy

Report an error

Email team@voltapeptides.com with the page URL and the specific sentence you believe is wrong. A citation to the source you think is correct helps, but is not required. You do not need to be a customer, and you do not need to give a reason for asking.

We aim to acknowledge correction requests within two business days and to resolve them within ten. A request that turns out to be right is acted on whether or not the correction is commercially convenient for us.

What we do about it

Not every change is a correction, and treating them all the same way makes the notice meaningless. We use four outcomes:

• Silent edit. Typographical errors, broken links, formatting and wording that does not change the meaning. The article's last-updated date moves; nothing else is recorded.
• Correction notice. A factual or interpretive error that a reader could have acted on: a wrong figure, a misattributed study, a claim the cited source does not support. The article carries a dated note at the foot saying what was wrong, what it now says, and when it changed. The original error is described rather than quietly replaced, because a reader who acted on the old version needs to know which version they read.
• Withdrawal. An article whose central claim does not survive is unpublished and its URL returns a notice explaining why, rather than a 404 or a redirect to a similar page. Deleting a wrong article is how the same wrong claim gets republished a year later.
• Re-review. Where an error suggests a whole class of pages may be affected, the class is re-checked rather than the single page that was reported.

Corrections we have published

Two are worth naming here because the false version was live long enough to have been read and acted on:

• Invented author names, corrected 15 September 2026. Between early 2026 and that date, 27 articles on this blog carried bylines attributed to named people with stated job titles who do not exist. They were generated strings, not contributors, and no such person wrote or reviewed the articles. Those bylines have been replaced with the editorial team byline that accurately describes who produced them, and every named person credited on this site now has a profile with verifiable credentials. We are describing this rather than deleting it because the articles themselves were read under a false claim of authorship.
• Testing laboratory directory, corrected September 2026. Our testing laboratory directory credited four organisations with peptide purity analysis they do not offer, including an asbestos laboratory. Each keeps its page and each page states what was wrong.

What this policy does not cover

Disagreement about interpretation is not an error. Where the published research genuinely conflicts, or where the evidence is preliminary, the article should say so, and a request to state one side as settled is a request we will decline rather than correct. If you think an article overstates its certainty, that is a correction request and we want it.