Assessment Criteria & Scoring System

Understanding Our 100-Point Evaluation Framework

PeptideRecon employs a quantitative, multi-dimensional assessment framework to evaluate peptide research suppliers. Our 100-point scoring system synthesizes objective data across four primary categories: Quality & Testing (40 points), Manufacturing & Compliance (30 points), Business Practices (20 points), and Operations (10 points). This methodology enables researchers to make evidence-based vendor selection decisions grounded in verifiable performance metrics rather than marketing claims.

Each supplier undergoes systematic evaluation using standardized criteria with predetermined point allocations. Scores are derived from documented evidence including third-party test results, certification status, regulatory filings, customer feedback analysis, and operational audits. This page provides a comprehensive breakdown of our scoring methodology, weighting rationale, and rating tier classifications.

Scoring Overview: 100-Point Scale

Our assessment framework distributes 100 total points across four weighted categories that reflect their relative importance to peptide quality, safety, and reliability:

Quality & Testing: 40 Points

The highest-weighted category reflects the paramount importance of analytical verification in peptide research. Quality and testing metrics directly correlate with compound authenticity, purity levels, and experimental reproducibility. This category evaluates third-party testing practices, analytical methodologies, purity standards, and contaminant screening protocols.

Manufacturing & Compliance: 30 Points

Manufacturing standards and regulatory compliance serve as foundational indicators of systematic quality control. This category assesses adherence to Good Manufacturing Practices, ISO certification status, regulatory compliance, and operational transparency. These metrics predict consistency, contamination control, and documentation reliability.

Business Practices: 20 Points

Business practice evaluation measures supplier reliability, transparency, and customer treatment. This includes company transparency metrics, documentation quality, and aggregated customer feedback analysis. These factors indicate operational stability and long-term vendor viability.

Operations: 10 Points

Operational metrics assess the practical aspects of peptide handling and delivery. Storage conditions and shipping protocols directly impact peptide stability and compound integrity upon receipt. While lower-weighted than quality factors, operational failures can compromise even high-purity compounds.

Total Available Points: 100

Final scores represent cumulative performance across all categories, with each point allocated based on documented evidence meeting specific criteria detailed in subsequent sections.

Quality & Testing: 40 Points Breakdown

Quality and testing criteria constitute 40% of total scoring weight, reflecting their critical role in research reliability. This category evaluates analytical verification depth, testing independence, purity achievement, and contaminant screening comprehensiveness.

Third-Party Testing: 15 Points

Independent analytical verification provides objective quality confirmation free from potential supplier bias. Third-party testing scores assess testing frequency, laboratory accreditation, methodology diversity, and result accessibility.

Point Distribution:

15 points: Comprehensive third-party testing on every batch by ISO 17025-accredited laboratories with publicly accessible certificates of analysis. Multiple analytical methods employed (HPLC, MS, NMR). Testing covers identity, purity, and contaminants.
12 points: Regular third-party testing (minimum 75% of batches) by accredited laboratories. Certificates provided upon request. HPLC and MS verification standard.
9 points: Periodic third-party testing (minimum 50% of batches) or consistent testing by non-accredited independent laboratories. Basic analytical verification provided.
6 points: Occasional third-party testing (less than 50% of batches) or testing methodology unclear. Limited documentation accessibility.
3 points: Rare third-party testing or reliance primarily on in-house analysis with minimal independent verification.
0 points: No third-party testing or no documentation provided.

Weighting Rationale: Third-party testing represents the gold standard for quality verification. Accredited laboratories follow validated protocols with documented traceability, significantly reducing verification bias. The 15-point allocation reflects this methodology's superior reliability compared to supplier self-testing.

Purity Standards: 10 Points

Purity levels directly impact experimental outcomes, with higher purity reducing confounding variables from contaminants or synthesis byproducts. This criterion evaluates guaranteed purity levels, consistency across batches, and purity verification methodology.

Point Distribution:

10 points: Guaranteed minimum purity of 98% or higher across product lines. Batch-specific purity documented for each order. Consistent achievement verified through historical test data.
8 points: Guaranteed minimum purity of 95-97.9% with documented verification. Some product lines available at 98%+ purity.
6 points: Guaranteed minimum purity of 90-94.9% or variable purity guarantees across product lines. Documentation provided but consistency unclear.
4 points: Guaranteed minimum purity of 85-89.9% or purity guarantees inconsistently applied.
2 points: Purity below 85% or no guaranteed purity minimums. General quality claims without specific verification.
0 points: No purity information provided or refusal to provide purity data.

Weighting Rationale: Purity standards receive substantial weighting (10 points) because purity directly correlates with experimental reproducibility and result validity. The threshold system reflects industry benchmarks where 98%+ purity represents optimal research-grade standards.

Analytical Methods: 10 Points

Analytical methodology diversity provides comprehensive compound characterization. Multiple orthogonal methods increase detection capability for different impurity types and verify structural accuracy through independent techniques.

Point Distribution:

10 points: Multi-method analytical verification standard: HPLC (purity), mass spectrometry (molecular weight confirmation), NMR (structural verification). Additional methods employed for specific peptides (amino acid analysis, peptide mapping).
8 points: Three analytical methods standard: HPLC and MS verification plus one additional method (NMR or amino acid analysis).
6 points: Two analytical methods standard: HPLC and MS verification for identity and purity.
4 points: Single primary analytical method (typically HPLC) with occasional secondary verification.
2 points: Basic analytical verification with limited methodology disclosure.
0 points: No analytical methods disclosed or verification methodology unclear.

Weighting Rationale: Analytical method diversity merits equal weighting (10 points) with purity standards because methodology determines detection capability. HPLC alone may miss structural isomers or specific contaminants that MS or NMR would detect. Multi-method verification provides superior quality assurance.

Contaminant Testing: 5 Points

Contaminant screening identifies potentially harmful residuals from synthesis, purification, or handling. Critical contaminants include endotoxins, heavy metals, residual solvents, and microbiological contamination.

Point Distribution:

5 points: Comprehensive contaminant testing panel standard: endotoxin testing (LAL assay), heavy metals screening, residual solvent analysis, microbiological testing. Results documented on certificates of analysis.
4 points: Standard contaminant testing including endotoxin and heavy metals screening. Additional testing available upon request.
3 points: Basic contaminant testing (endotoxin screening) with limited additional testing.
2 points: Occasional or product-specific contaminant testing. No standard testing protocol.
1 point: Contaminant testing available only by special request at additional cost.
0 points: No contaminant testing offered or no documentation provided.

Weighting Rationale: Contaminant testing receives moderate weighting (5 points) as essential but secondary to purity verification. While critical for safety and specific applications (particularly in vivo studies), contaminant testing addresses narrower risk factors than comprehensive purity analysis.

Manufacturing & Compliance: 30 Points Breakdown

Manufacturing and compliance metrics assess systematic quality management, regulatory adherence, and operational documentation standards. These criteria predict consistency, contamination control effectiveness, and long-term reliability.

GMP Compliance: 10 Points

Good Manufacturing Practice compliance demonstrates systematic quality management, environmental controls, personnel training, and documentation protocols. GMP facilities implement validated processes reducing batch-to-batch variability and contamination risk.

Point Distribution:

10 points: Full GMP-certified manufacturing facility with documented certification from recognized regulatory authority. Regular inspections conducted and passed. Comprehensive quality management system implemented.
8 points: GMP-compliant facility without formal certification, or GMP certification for specific production areas. Quality management systems in place with documented SOPs.
6 points: Partial GMP compliance with documented quality control procedures. Some manufacturing areas meet GMP standards.
4 points: Basic quality control systems implemented but no formal GMP compliance. Standard operating procedures exist but validation unclear.
2 points: Minimal quality management systems. Manufacturing practices not documented or disclosed.
0 points: No quality management systems evident or information refused.

Weighting Rationale: GMP compliance receives the highest allocation in this category (10 points) because GMP principles establish fundamental quality infrastructure. GMP certification indicates systematic contamination control, validated processes, and documented quality procedures extending beyond individual product testing.

ISO Certifications: 8 Points

ISO certifications demonstrate third-party audited management systems for quality (ISO 9001), environmental controls (ISO 14001), and laboratory competence (ISO 17025). These standards provide framework-level assurance of operational consistency.

Point Distribution:

8 points: Multiple relevant ISO certifications maintained: ISO 9001 (quality management) plus ISO 17025 (laboratory testing) or ISO 14001 (environmental management). Current certification status verified.
6 points: ISO 9001 certification maintained with documented quality management system. Certification current and verifiable.
4 points: ISO certification in process or recently expired. Quality management systems implemented but certification status unclear.
2 points: No ISO certification but documented quality management practices that align with ISO principles.
0 points: No ISO certifications and no quality management system documentation provided.

Weighting Rationale: ISO certifications merit substantial weighting (8 points) as independently audited quality frameworks. ISO certification requires external verification of documented processes, distinguishing it from self-reported quality claims. Multiple relevant certifications indicate comprehensive quality commitment.

Transparency: 7 Points

Operational transparency measures supplier willingness to disclose manufacturing processes, testing protocols, source materials, and facility information. Transparency correlates with confidence in quality systems and reduced risk of concealed deficiencies.

Point Distribution:

7 points: Comprehensive transparency: manufacturing location disclosed, synthesis methodology explained, testing protocols detailed, source material information provided. Facility tours or virtual inspections available.
5-6 points: High transparency with most operational information disclosed. Manufacturing location and general testing protocols provided. Some proprietary information withheld but core processes explained.
3-4 points: Moderate transparency with basic information provided. General manufacturing claims made but specific details limited. Testing protocols summarized but methodology incomplete.
1-2 points: Limited transparency with minimal operational disclosure. Manufacturing location vague or undisclosed. Testing information generic.
0 points: No transparency regarding manufacturing, testing, or operational practices.

Weighting Rationale: Transparency receives moderate-high weighting (7 points) as a proxy for quality confidence and operational legitimacy. Suppliers confident in their processes typically provide detailed disclosure, while opacity often correlates with quality concerns or questionable practices.

Regulatory Compliance: 5 Points

Regulatory compliance assesses adherence to applicable research chemical regulations, business licensing, import/export compliance, and legal operating status. While research peptides exist in a complex regulatory environment, legitimate suppliers maintain appropriate business registrations and comply with applicable chemical handling regulations.

Point Distribution:

5 points: Full regulatory compliance documented: appropriate business licenses, chemical handling permits where applicable, import/export compliance verified, clear legal structure, terms of service compliant with research-only sales.
4 points: Standard regulatory compliance with business registration and research-only sale restrictions clearly stated. Basic chemical handling compliance evident.
3 points: Basic business registration with research-only disclaimers. Regulatory compliance assumed but documentation limited.
2 points: Minimal regulatory documentation. Business structure unclear or compliance status ambiguous.
0 points: No regulatory compliance evident, unlicensed operation, or regulatory violations documented.

Weighting Rationale: Regulatory compliance receives moderate weighting (5 points) reflecting the nuanced regulatory environment for research peptides. While critical for supplier legitimacy, regulatory frameworks vary by jurisdiction and product category, making this criterion less universally applicable than quality or manufacturing standards.

Business Practices: 20 Points Breakdown

Business practice evaluation measures supplier reliability, customer treatment, transparency, and documentation quality. These metrics predict vendor stability, communication effectiveness, and problem resolution capability.

Company Transparency: 8 Points

Company transparency assesses disclosure of business identity, ownership structure, contact information, operational history, and corporate accountability. Transparent suppliers provide verifiable company information enabling due diligence and accountability.

Point Distribution:

8 points: Complete company transparency: full business name and registration disclosed, ownership/management identified, physical address provided, contact information complete (phone, email, business hours), operational history documented, responsive communication channels.
6 points: High company transparency with business registration, physical address, and complete contact information provided. Management information may be limited but core business details verifiable.
4 points: Moderate transparency with business name and contact email provided. Physical address may be vague or omitted. Company background limited.
2 points: Limited transparency with minimal company information. Contact via email only, no physical address, business registration unclear.
0 points: No company transparency. Anonymous operation, unverifiable business identity, no physical address or phone contact.

Weighting Rationale: Company transparency receives the highest business practice allocation (8 points) because supplier identity verification represents fundamental due diligence. Transparent companies enable accountability and provide recourse mechanisms, while anonymous operations present elevated risk for fraud, quality issues, or dispute resolution failures.

Documentation Quality: 7 Points

Documentation quality evaluates certificates of analysis completeness, product specification sheets, safety data sheets, handling instructions, and storage recommendations. Comprehensive documentation indicates systematic quality management and supports proper compound handling.

Point Distribution:

7 points: Comprehensive documentation standard: batch-specific certificates of analysis with complete test results, detailed product specifications, safety data sheets provided, storage and handling instructions included, analytical method descriptions available.
5-6 points: Complete core documentation provided: certificates of analysis with key test results, product specifications, safety information, and storage instructions. Some technical details may require request.
3-4 points: Basic documentation provided: certificates of analysis with purity results, limited product specifications. Safety and handling information generic or incomplete.
1-2 points: Minimal documentation. Basic certificates of analysis may be provided but information incomplete. Supporting documentation limited or absent.
0 points: No documentation provided or documentation quality insufficient for verification purposes.

Weighting Rationale: Documentation quality receives substantial weighting (7 points) because comprehensive documentation enables compound verification, proper handling, safety compliance, and experimental documentation. Poor documentation creates verification gaps and increases experimental risk.

Customer Feedback: 5 Points

Customer feedback analysis aggregates user experiences regarding product quality, shipping reliability, customer service responsiveness, and problem resolution. While subjective, systematic feedback analysis across multiple sources identifies consistent patterns in supplier performance.

Point Distribution:

5 points: Consistently positive customer feedback across multiple platforms. High satisfaction ratings for product quality, shipping, and customer service. Negative feedback rare and addressed promptly. Response rate to inquiries exceeds 90%.
4 points: Predominantly positive feedback with occasional negative reviews. Issues typically resolved satisfactorily. Customer service generally responsive within 24-48 hours.
3 points: Mixed feedback with both positive and negative reviews. Some unresolved complaints documented. Customer service responsiveness variable.
2 points: Predominantly negative feedback or significant unresolved complaints. Customer service responsiveness poor. Multiple documented quality or shipping issues.
1 point: Substantial negative feedback with serious unresolved issues. Pattern of customer service failures or quality complaints.
0 points: Overwhelmingly negative feedback, documented fraud claims, or no customer feedback available (new/unknown supplier).

Weighting Rationale: Customer feedback receives moderate weighting (5 points) reflecting its value as real-world performance data while acknowledging inherent subjectivity and potential bias in online reviews. Feedback serves as a secondary verification mechanism for claims made by suppliers regarding quality and service.

Operations: 10 Points Breakdown

Operational criteria assess peptide handling and delivery practices that impact compound stability and integrity. Storage conditions and shipping protocols directly affect peptide quality upon receipt, regardless of initial synthesis quality.

Storage Conditions: 6 Points

Proper storage conditions maintain peptide stability prior to shipment. Temperature control, humidity management, and light protection prevent degradation, oxidation, and aggregation during warehouse storage.

Point Distribution:

6 points: Optimal storage conditions documented: temperature-controlled storage at -20°C or below for long-term inventory, humidity-controlled environment, light-protected storage, nitrogen or inert gas storage for oxygen-sensitive peptides. Storage protocols documented and verifiable.
5 points: Refrigerated storage (2-8°C) standard with freezer storage for long-term inventory. Humidity and light control implemented. Storage conditions disclosed.
4 points: Refrigerated storage standard. Basic environmental controls. Storage conditions generally appropriate but documentation limited.
3 points: Room temperature storage with refrigeration for specific peptides. Environmental controls basic or unspecified.
1-2 points: Storage conditions unclear or appear inadequate. No temperature control documentation.
0 points: No storage information provided or storage conditions clearly inadequate.

Weighting Rationale: Storage conditions receive higher operational weighting (6 of 10 points) because improper storage can degrade even high-purity peptides before shipment. Temperature-controlled storage represents the primary variable affecting peptide stability during inventory management.

Shipping Protocols: 4 Points

Shipping protocols assess cold chain maintenance, packaging methods, delivery speed, and tracking capabilities. Proper shipping preserves peptide integrity during transit, particularly for temperature-sensitive compounds.

Point Distribution:

4 points: Cold chain shipping standard: insulated packaging with ice packs or dry ice, temperature monitoring available, expedited shipping options (2-3 day maximum), tracking provided, packaging designed for peptide protection (light-blocking, moisture-resistant).
3 points: Cold shipping available with ice packs for temperature-sensitive peptides. Standard shipping includes insulated packaging. Tracking provided.
2 points: Basic shipping with minimal temperature control. Standard packaging without specialized insulation. Tracking available but shipping speed variable.
1 point: Room temperature shipping standard. Minimal packaging protection. Tracking limited or absent.
0 points: Inadequate shipping protocols or no shipping information provided.

Weighting Rationale: Shipping protocols receive moderate operational weighting (4 points) as a secondary stability factor. While important, shipping duration is typically shorter than storage periods, reducing overall impact on peptide integrity. However, inadequate shipping can compromise otherwise properly stored compounds.

Rating Tiers Explained

Final scores translate into four rating tiers reflecting overall supplier quality and recommendation status. These tiers provide simplified decision frameworks while maintaining nuanced scoring granularity.

Excellent: 90-100 Points

Recommendation Level: Highly Recommended

Suppliers achieving 90-100 points demonstrate exceptional performance across all evaluation categories. Excellent-rated suppliers typically feature:

Comprehensive third-party testing on all batches by accredited laboratories
Guaranteed purity minimums of 98% or higher with consistent achievement
Multi-method analytical verification including HPLC, MS, and NMR
GMP-certified or fully GMP-compliant facilities
Multiple relevant ISO certifications maintained
High operational transparency with detailed process disclosure
Comprehensive documentation including batch-specific CoAs
Consistently positive customer feedback
Optimal storage and shipping protocols with cold chain maintenance

Use Case: Excellent-rated suppliers represent optimal choices for critical research applications, publication-grade experiments, and studies requiring maximum quality assurance. These suppliers demonstrate systematic quality management with multiple verification layers, making them suitable for high-stakes research where reproducibility and compound integrity are paramount.

Risk Profile: Minimal risk. Multiple quality verification mechanisms and systematic management processes significantly reduce probability of quality failures, contamination, or documentation deficiencies.

Good: 75-89 Points

Recommendation Level: Recommended

Suppliers scoring 75-89 points provide reliable quality with solid verification practices, though they may lack the comprehensive testing or certification depth of excellent-rated vendors. Good-rated suppliers typically feature:

Regular third-party testing (majority of batches) or consistent in-house testing with periodic external verification
Guaranteed purity minimums of 95-98% with documented verification
Dual analytical method verification (HPLC and MS standard)
GMP-compliant facilities or ISO 9001 certification
Moderate to high transparency with core operational information disclosed
Complete core documentation (CoAs, specifications, safety data)
Predominantly positive customer feedback
Appropriate storage and shipping with temperature control

Use Case: Good-rated suppliers suit most standard research applications, preliminary studies, and cost-conscious projects where quality verification remains important but maximum assurance is not required. These suppliers provide solid reliability at potentially more accessible price points than excellent-rated vendors.

Risk Profile: Low to moderate risk. Quality verification practices adequate for most applications, though less comprehensive than excellent-rated suppliers. Occasional quality variations possible but generally manageable.

Fair: 60-74 Points

Recommendation Level: Acceptable with Cautions

Suppliers scoring 60-74 points meet basic quality standards but exhibit gaps in testing comprehensiveness, certification depth, or operational transparency. Fair-rated suppliers typically feature:

In-house testing primarily with occasional third-party verification
Purity minimums of 90-95% or variable purity guarantees
Single analytical method verification or limited methodology disclosure
Basic quality control systems without formal GMP compliance or ISO certification
Moderate transparency with some operational details withheld
Basic documentation provided but completeness variable
Mixed customer feedback or limited feedback history
Basic storage and shipping without specialized protocols

Use Case: Fair-rated suppliers may suit preliminary screening studies, non-critical applications, or situations where budget constraints preclude higher-tier vendors. Additional verification (independent testing, small initial orders) recommended before large-scale use. Not recommended for publication-grade or high-stakes research.

Risk Profile: Moderate to elevated risk. Quality verification gaps create uncertainty regarding batch consistency and purity achievement. Documentation limitations may complicate experimental documentation. Independent verification advised.

Not Recommended: Below 60 Points

Recommendation Level: Not Recommended

Suppliers scoring below 60 points exhibit significant deficiencies in quality verification, manufacturing standards, transparency, or business practices. Not-recommended suppliers typically exhibit:

No third-party testing or testing methodology undisclosed
Purity claims unverified or purity below 90%
Analytical verification absent or inadequate
No quality management systems evident
Minimal transparency or anonymous operation
Documentation incomplete or unavailable
Predominantly negative customer feedback or serious complaints
Storage and shipping protocols inadequate or undisclosed

Use Case: Not-recommended suppliers pose substantial risks for research applications. Quality uncertainty, lack of verification, and operational deficiencies make these suppliers inappropriate for any serious research use. Even for non-critical applications, risks typically outweigh potential cost savings.

Risk Profile: High risk. Significant probability of quality failures, contamination, misidentified compounds, or fraudulent products. Documentation deficiencies prevent adequate verification. Customer service and dispute resolution often problematic. Strongly advised to select alternative suppliers.

Understanding Tier Boundaries

Rating tier boundaries reflect inflection points in quality assurance comprehensiveness rather than arbitrary cutoffs. The 90-point threshold for "Excellent" represents systematic quality management with multiple independent verification mechanisms. The 75-point threshold for "Good" indicates reliable verification practices meeting industry standards. The 60-point threshold for "Fair" represents minimum acceptable quality verification for research applications. Scores below 60 indicate verification deficiencies creating unacceptable risk levels for research use.

Critical Failure Points

Certain deficiencies constitute critical failures that override overall scoring and result in automatic "Not Recommended" designation regardless of performance in other categories. Critical failures indicate fundamental operational problems or unacceptable risk levels.

Automatic Disqualification Criteria

1. Zero Third-Party Testing and No Analytical Verification

Suppliers providing no analytical verification (neither third-party nor in-house testing documentation) receive automatic disqualification. Without any analytical data, compound identity, purity, and quality cannot be verified, creating unacceptable risk of misidentified, contaminated, or fraudulent products.

Override Condition: Scores irrelevant; automatic "Not Recommended" designation applied.

2. Documented Quality Failures or Safety Issues

Suppliers with documented history of severe quality failures (misidentified compounds, dangerous contamination, significant purity discrepancies) or safety violations receive automatic disqualification. Past severe failures predict future risk regardless of current claimed improvements.

Override Condition: Automatic "Not Recommended" unless comprehensive third-party audit documents systematic remediation and minimum 12-month verification period without issues.

3. Fraudulent Practices or Regulatory Violations

Suppliers with documented fraudulent practices (fabricated test results, misrepresentation of certifications, false claims) or serious regulatory violations receive permanent disqualification. Fraud indicates fundamental integrity failures undermining all quality claims.

Override Condition: Permanent disqualification; no remediation pathway.

4. Anonymous Operation with Zero Company Transparency

Suppliers operating anonymously (no verifiable company identity, no physical address, no phone contact, no business registration) receive automatic disqualification. Anonymous operations prevent accountability, verification, and dispute resolution.

Override Condition: Disqualification until basic company information provided and independently verified.

5. Pattern of Unresolved Customer Complaints

Suppliers with extensive documented customer complaints regarding quality, shipping failures, or customer service issues with no evidence of resolution attempts receive automatic disqualification. Systematic complaint patterns indicate operational problems affecting reliability.

Override Condition: Automatic "Not Recommended" unless supplier demonstrates systematic complaint resolution and 6-month period of improved feedback.

Critical Failure Impact on Scoring

Critical failures override standard scoring methodology. A supplier could theoretically score 85 points based on stated capabilities but receive "Not Recommended" designation due to a single critical failure. This override reflects the principle that certain deficiencies create unacceptable baseline risk regardless of strengths in other areas.

Critical failures differ from standard low scores in that they indicate fundamental operational problems (fraud, severe quality failures, zero verification) rather than mere gaps in comprehensiveness. Standard low scores (below 60 points) indicate insufficient quality assurance; critical failures indicate active risk factors or disqualifying deficiencies.

Verification and Due Diligence

While PeptideRecon conducts systematic supplier evaluation, researchers bear ultimate responsibility for vendor due diligence. Our assessments provide decision-support frameworks based on available evidence, but users should:

Verify critical claims independently (certifications, testing protocols)
Request and review certificates of analysis before large orders
Consider independent testing for critical applications
Start with small orders when trying new suppliers
Document supplier performance for internal records
Report significant discrepancies between supplier claims and delivered products

Our scoring system synthesizes available evidence but cannot substitute for direct verification in high-stakes applications. Ratings reflect performance based on documentation review, testing analysis, and feedback aggregation at time of assessment; supplier performance may change over time.

Methodology Notes and Limitations

PeptideRecon's scoring methodology employs systematic evaluation protocols designed to maximize objectivity and reproducibility. However, users should understand inherent limitations and assessment constraints:

Evidence-Based Assessment

Scores derive from documented evidence including certifications, test results, published protocols, and verifiable feedback. Claims without documentation receive minimal credit. Suppliers refusing documentation access or transparency receive correspondingly lower scores. This evidence-based approach favors suppliers willing to document and disclose their practices.

Point-in-Time Evaluation

Assessments reflect supplier status at evaluation time. Supplier capabilities, certifications, and practices may change. Users should verify current status for critical decisions, particularly for assessments older than 12 months. We update supplier assessments periodically but cannot guarantee real-time accuracy.

Category Weighting Rationale

Our weighting system prioritizes quality verification and manufacturing standards (70 combined points) over business practices and operations (30 combined points). This reflects the assessment that compound quality represents the primary value proposition for research peptide suppliers. However, individual researchers may weight factors differently based on specific needs (e.g., shipping speed for time-sensitive experiments).

Subjective Elements

While predominantly quantitative, certain criteria contain subjective elements (customer feedback interpretation, transparency assessment). We employ systematic protocols to minimize subjectivity, but users should review detailed assessments rather than relying solely on numerical scores when subjective factors carry particular importance for their applications.

Continuous Improvement

Our scoring methodology undergoes periodic review and refinement based on industry standards evolution, user feedback, and emerging quality assessment best practices. Methodology updates may result in score adjustments for previously evaluated suppliers. We maintain version control and document methodology changes affecting scoring comparability.