Editorial Policy
How we review.
Review methodology
- Review type
- Single-blind. Reviewers do not know the author's identity; authors may be informed of reviewer identity post-publication at reviewer discretion.
- Reviewers per submission
- Two, with Editor-in-Chief adjudication on disagreement.
- Review basis
- Methodological soundness, internal consistency with source data, completeness of safety reporting. Peer review does not independently verify self-reported outcomes or biomarker data.
Reviewer qualifications
Review Board members hold at minimum one of: a relevant doctoral degree (PhD, MD, PharmD, DVM with relevant research background), a master's degree with demonstrated peptide or biochemistry research experience, or equivalent published research experience in a related field. Credentials are kept on file and a brief qualification summary is published on the masthead page for transparency.
Conflict of interest policy
- Reviewers and editors must disclose any current or prior financial relationship with Sakura Wellness (employment, equity, advisor commission earnings) beyond standard journal compensation.
- A reviewer with a disclosed conflict related to a specific submission must recuse from reviewing it.
- Sakura Wellness commercial staff (sales, marketing, advisor operations) may not serve as reviewers or editors.
- Authors disclose any compensation or product relationship tied to the compound studied in the Author Conflict of Interest statement of every submission.
Submission requirements
- Foundation or Elite Sakura membership.
- Underlying observational registry submission with status complete and quality score ≥ 70.
- Adverse event disclosure (cannot be blank).
- Limitations boilerplate (cannot be removed; can be extended).
- Sourcing tier disclosure (Core / Verified / Reserve).
- Author conflict of interest statement.