Every useful claim needs a source and a limit.
How Monday Research prepares educational guides, distinguishes evidence from interpretation, and handles corrections.
Who is responsible for the content?
Monday Research is the publishing brand and the organizational byline on these guides. We do not claim that the brand is a clinical credential. The launch guides were prepared with AI assistance and checked against their linked sources. They have not received independent clinical review.
If a qualified contributor or reviewer is appointed, their name, relevant credentials and specific contribution should appear on the affected article after verification. We do not invent experts, laboratory testing, testimonials or institutional endorsements.
What the guides are for
These pages help readers understand research records and lab reports. They explain how to ask a more precise question and find the original evidence. They do not prescribe treatment, provide administration instructions, certify suppliers or establish that a research material is suitable for human use.
Reading checklists are Monday’s practical aids. They are identified separately from findings attributed to a study or official source.
How we use sources
Prefer original studies, study registries and official scientific or regulatory documents. Keep the exact compound, model, formulation and measured outcome attached to each finding. A regulator’s briefing is identified as a briefing; a registry entry is not presented as a completed result; an animal or laboratory study is not relabeled as human evidence.
Sources sit beside the relevant discussion and include notes explaining their scope. A working URL alone does not establish that a source supports a claim. Source review must inspect the document and resolve material mismatches.
AI assistance and publication checks
AI can assist with research discovery, drafting, organization and technical checks. Those tools can miss context or produce errors. Each published guide identifies its review status. Automated checks cover structure, dates, source references, links and publication eligibility; they do not constitute independent scientific review.
A new draft is kept out of the public site until its exact text has been reviewed for release. A source alert creates a review task. It does not silently rewrite a scientific conclusion. Unverified treatment claims or regulatory conclusions must be held for an appropriately qualified reviewer.
Dates and corrections
Publication dates describe when an article first appeared. Update dates change when its content changes, not merely when the site is rebuilt. A source-check date describes a completed check and does not mean that a new study was published.
To suggest a correction, use the contact page and include the page URL, the disputed passage and a source or explanation. Material corrections are recorded in the article’s publication history. Unresolved uncertainty should remain visible.
On 15 September 2026, we corrected the FDA source linked from the modified GRF record: the previous URL opened a BPC-157 evaluation. The replacement is the December 2024 briefing that separately identifies CJC-1295 forms.
Commercial relationships
A commercial relationship must be disclosed beside the link or action it affects. It does not change what a study tested or supply evidence for a claim. The launch guides contain no paid placement or affiliate recommendation. Public research tools and a request for a free research pack are identified as Monday features.
Start with the original record
Explore the research blog, open the Atlas source register or use the evidence checklist. Keep the limits beside the answer when you share what you find.