How We Score
The Research Quality Score is PeptideClear's framework for evaluating the methodological strength of evidence behind each compound. Not what a peptide does — how much you should trust the research saying it does that.
Why RQS Exists
Most peptide resources tell you what a compound does. Very few tell you how confident you should be in that claim.
The peptide space has an evidence problem. A compound with one animal study and a compound with ten independent human RCTs can appear side by side on the same vendor page with identical confidence. The research exists — it's just rarely translated in a way that lets a curious person evaluate it honestly.
RQS was built to solve that. Developed with input from academic researchers and members of the peptide research community, the framework scores each compound across seven dimensions of research quality — study design, sample size, replication, journal credibility, funding independence, population diversity, and researcher credentials. The result is a single score out of 100 that reflects methodological strength, not anecdote, not marketing, not community consensus.
Every score on PeptideClear is documented, reproducible, and open to scrutiny. That's the point.
The 7-Dimension Rubric
Each compound is scored across seven dimensions. Here's exactly how points are assigned.
| Dimension | Max | Scoring Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Study Design | 25 | Multiple Human RCTs: 25 · Single RCT: 20 · Observational: 15 · Phase I/II: 10 · Animal only: 5 · In vitro: 2 · None: 0 |
| Sample Size | 20 | 1,000+ participants: 20 · 500–999: 16 · 100–499: 12 · 50–99: 8 · 10–49: 4 · Under 10: 1 · Animal/cell only: 0 |
| Replication | 20 | 3+ independent groups: 20 · 2 independent groups: 15 · Single group multiple studies: 10 · Single study: 5 · Same institution only: 2 · No replication: 0 |
| Journal Impact Factor | 15 | IF 8+ (NEJM, Nature): 15 · IF 5–7: 12 · IF 3–4: 8 · IF 1–2: 4 · Predatory journal: 1 · Grey literature: 0 |
| Funding Independence | 10 | Fully independent (NIH, academic): 10 · Mixed: 7 · Industry pre-registered: 4 · Industry no oversight: 1 · Undisclosed: 0 |
| Population Diversity | 5 | Diverse age/sex/ethnicity: 5 · Moderate diversity: 3 · Narrow population: 1 · Animal only: 0 |
| Researcher h-Index | 5 | h-Index 20+: 5 · h-Index 10–19: 3 · h-Index under 10: 1 · Not findable: 0 |
Score Bands
Score bands are not a recommendation for or against any compound. They are a signal of how much methodological weight the current evidence can bear.
| 80–100 | Strong Evidence | Multiple well-designed human trials, independently replicated, published in credible journals. |
| 60–79 | Moderate Evidence | Human evidence exists but limited in scale, replication, or methodological rigor. |
| 40–59 | Limited Evidence | Early-stage human data or mixed study quality — directional but not conclusive. |
| 20–39 | Weak Evidence | Primarily animal or observational data — insufficient to draw reliable human conclusions. |
| 0–19 | Insufficient | Minimal or no credible research base. |
Scoring Log
Every compound in the PeptideClear catalog has been scored using the rubric above. Click any compound to see the full per-dimension breakdown and scoring notes.