Accountability

Editorial governance, authors and reviewers

Every conclusion has a named human owner. Author, scientific-review and clinical-review responsibilities are separated so a visible credit does not imply work outside that person's remit.

Yianni Kiromitis is the lead author, publisher and managing editor. Eleni Kiromitis completed the assigned scientific review and Dr Stavroula Nikitopoulou completed the assigned clinical review on 10 August 2026.

The first 30 evidence records now carry dated scientific and clinical sign-off. Each visible review line must match the reviewer names and completion date in structured data.

Who is responsible for each part of a page?

One person may hold more than one role when their competence covers each remit. The page must still state which work they completed. A generic “expert reviewed” label does not show what the reviewer checked.

Research and drafting

Author or evidence editor

Defines the claim, records the search, extracts findings and writes the scoped conclusion.

Names sources and access dates
Separates human, animal and laboratory evidence
Records uncertainty and unresolved questions

Scientific interpretation

Scientific or clinical reviewer

Checks whether the evidence supports the stated claim and whether the caveats travel with the conclusion.

Reviews study design and directness
Checks clinical and safety wording
Approves only the content within their remit

Jurisdiction and status

Regulatory reviewer

Checks dated UK medicine-status, advertising and official-source statements.

Verifies the current source
Separates guidance from legislation
Sets the next review trigger

Measurement and method

Laboratory reviewer

Checks claims about analytical methods, accreditation scope, measurands and result limitations.

Matches method to attribute
Checks sample and provenance language
Stops inference beyond the measurement

How a page moves from draft to publication

The workflow creates an audit trail. Publication follows completed checks, not a scheduled review.

Scope

The editor fixes the claim, evidence layer, mapped attributes and links before research begins.

Source

The author records the search, sources, dates, extracted findings and unresolved questions.

Review

Each reviewer checks the claims within their declared scientific, regulatory or laboratory remit.

Release

The page receives a byline, review date, conflicts statement and route into the correction log.

01Visible identity
02Review remit
03Conflicts
04Corrections

What appears beside a published page?

The byline shows the author's name and relevant qualification or experience. A review line names the reviewer, describes the scope of review and shows the completion date. Structured data must match the visible information.

No page will claim medical, scientific, regulatory or laboratory review from a person who has not completed that work. An empty field stays absent rather than receiving a placeholder identity.

How do we define a reviewer's remit?

Competence is matched to the claim. A scientific reviewer does not automatically validate a legal statement. A regulatory reviewer does not automatically validate analytical chemistry. The page records which sections or claim types each reviewer checked.

How are conflicts handled?

Authors and reviewers declare relevant financial, professional and personal interests. A declared interest does not always prevent participation, but the editor records it, narrows the remit or assigns an independent reviewer when the interest could affect judgement.

Commercial relationships belonging to the publisher appear in the separate funding and conflicts declaration.

Who owns an error after publication?

Yianni Kiromitis holds correction authority and manages the correction record. The editor may fix spelling, citations and broken links. A scientific verdict change needs scientific review; a medical-safety change needs clinical review; and a laboratory-method claim needs review within that analytical remit.

Check our correction record

Named editorial team

These biographies describe relevant experience and assigned remits. Page-level credits identify the work each person completed and the review date.

Lead author · Publisher · Managing editor

Yianni Kiromitis

BSc (Hons) Radiography; PgC Medical Ultrasound (General Imaging). HCPC registration RA38415.

Yianni leads claim definition, research, source verification, evidence interpretation, editorial decisions and correction management. His clinical imaging experience informs careful separation of an observed measurement from conclusions that the method cannot support.

HCPC registration RA38415 was checked on 10 August 2026 and showed Registered, Diagnostic radiographer.

Scientific reviewer

Eleni Kiromitis

BSc (Hons) Biomedical Science, with experience in UK clinical-laboratory and specialist medical-technician environments. Her direct experience includes commissioning laboratory tests and reviewing certificates of analysis and chromatograms. She is not presented as currently HCPC registered and no protected biomedical-scientist title is claimed.

Her remit covers study design, biomedical evidence, laboratory context, analytical limits and the separation of human, animal and cell findings. She completed the assigned scientific reviews on 10 August 2026.

Clinical reviewer

Dr Stavroula Nikitopoulou

General Practitioner and functional-medicine practitioner. GMC registration 6092503.

Her remit covers clinical claims, adverse effects, contraindications, red flags and patient-facing safety wording. Functional medicine is described as an area of practice, not as a GMC-recognised specialty. She completed the assigned clinical reviews on 10 August 2026.

Check the GMC medical register using 6092503.

Review completed

Dated sign-off recorded

Eleni Kiromitis completed scientific review and Dr Stavroula Nikitopoulou completed clinical review for the assigned evidence records on 10 August 2026. Search visibility remains disabled until the separate technical launch gates pass.

Inspect the controls around the people

MethodHow reviewers reach a findingSee the evidence layers, rating inputs, verdict language and update rules. IndependenceFunding and conflictsCheck the publisher relationships excluded from verdicts. AccountabilityCorrections and versionsSee the public record of substantive changes.

Editorial experience

From our work: how we checked this page

For topical-map item C-005, Editorial governance, authors and reviewers was checked as a distinct editorial task, not treated as a generic peptide page. We reviewed 2 unique external sources and 3 internal destinations in the page, then checked that the opening answer, headings, source descriptions and linked next steps stayed within the same claim boundary. The count records links in the published page and is not a claim that every source carries equal evidential weight.

Yianni Kiromitis checked the page against its mapped purpose, verified the cited sources, reviewed the internal routes and approved the final wording as Lead Author, Publisher and Managing Editor. This page does not carry a specialist review credit because its publication decision did not require a scientific or clinical conclusion beyond the named material it links to.

We did not use patient experience, a personal treatment outcome, seller testimony or an assumed product identity to support this page. The publication did not independently test a vial for this review. Where a page refers to a laboratory result, that result applies only to the named sample, method and attribute. We kept uncertainty beside the conclusion, recorded which source supports each material claim, and checked that the visible review date matches the publication record. A new controlled study, regulator update, corrected source, analytical report or credible safety signal can trigger reassessment through the public correction route.