About · Editorial process
How the grades get made.
Compound Codex is a research-aggregator company that gathers what the literature actually says about peptides, SARMs, and research compounds — and builds the tools (bloodwork analyzer, reconstitution calculator, the Codex Scale) to make that knowledge usable. There are no marquee bylines because the work runs on a documented methodology, not on any one person's authority. Every grade is reproducible from the same sources by anyone reading the same evidence the same way.
Every compound profile starts with the underlying literature, regulatory record, and (where relevant) anti-doping listings — not the marketing copy that surrounds the compound elsewhere on the internet.
A single 1–10 grade is assigned based on the strength and replicability of human evidence — not popularity, not how widely sold, not how plausible the mechanism. The full rubric is at /methodology.
Once the evidence picture is locked, the profile gets a plain-English rewrite — jargon defined inline, marketing language stripped, the honest "we don't really know yet" sections kept explicit rather than papered over.
A second pass verifies every citation resolves, every grade-affecting claim is backed by the cited source, and the grade is defensible against the rubric. Anything that doesn't check out gets pulled.
Published profiles carry a "Last reviewed" date. Every change to a published grade — up or down — gets noted in the changelog with the source that drove it.
Compound Codex is a research-aggregator company, not a personal expertise platform. There are no marquee bylines because the work isn't built around one person's authority — it's built around a documented process applied the same way to every compound. That's a deliberate choice. The integrity check on a grade isn't "who wrote this" but "do the sources actually say what the grade says they say." Every profile cites the underlying studies and regulatory records, and every grade change lands in the changelog with the source that drove it.
Two implications worth being explicit about: every claim must be defensible from primary sources, since none of it leans on a named expert's reputation; and any contributor can be rotated out without changing what the site does, because the methodology — not any single contributor — is the constant. The structure exists to make grades reproducible by anyone reading the same evidence.
No personal bylines
Profiles aren't signed by an individual. The byline is the brand and the methodology — replicable, not personality-driven.
Every claim sourced
Without a named expert's reputation backing assertions, every grade-affecting claim has to trace to a primary source. The "Sources" section at the foot of every profile is the actual editorial backstop.
Methodology over personality
The Codex Scale is the editorial constant. A different reader running the same methodology over the same sources should land on the same grade.
Changes are logged, not hidden
When a grade moves, the changelog records the move and the source that drove it. The site corrects itself in public.
Funding
Compound Codex is independent and unfunded by any compound seller, lab, telehealth provider, or supplement company. Revenue comes from donations and the paid deep-dive PDF — neither influences a grade. We do not run advertising.
Conflicts of interest
Compound Codex as a company holds no equity in, takes no commission from, and runs no affiliate relationship with any peptide vendor, compounding pharmacy, supplement brand, or telehealth provider named on the site. If that ever changes, it gets disclosed here.
Affiliate relationships
None. Profiles do not link to vendors. The /testing page lists analytical labs (the ones that test peptide purity); they pay us nothing for the listing.
What we sell
Educational content — a paid deep-dive PDF that consolidates the methodology, the calculators, and a structured way to read the ledger. Donations via the /support page. Future: paid consultations / training, clearly framed as our time rather than as compound sales.
Spot an error or want to push back on a grade? Contact us or post in the forum with the source. For the methodology see the Codex Scale; for our editorial principles see standards.