# About Semax Reviews — Independent Research Literature Publisher > About Semax Reviews: an independent editorial project summarizing the peer-reviewed research on Semax (ACTH(4-7)PGP). Editorial standards, sourcing methodology, and disclaimer. Semax Reviews is an independent editorial project. Here is what that means, how we source our content, and what we do not do. ## What Semax Reviews is Semax Reviews is an independent editorial project that publishes summaries of the peer-reviewed research literature on Semax (ACTH(4-7)PGP, the synthetic heptapeptide registered as a pharmaceutical in the Russian Federation). We are not a clinic. We do not employ clinicians and we do not provide medical advice. We do not manufacture, sell, or distribute any product. Our work is editorial commentary on publicly available science. The 'reviews' in our name refers to literature review — the same usage found in academic publications like Annual Review of Pharmacology, Pharmacological Reviews, or Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. We walk through the research literature, organize it, and present it with citations. We do not review products. We do not review vendors. We do not promote or discourage any commercial activity. The domain modifier 'reviews' is editorial framing: a position this publisher occupies relative to the scientific literature, not a claim about the site's services. Every clinical or regulatory modifier in domain names in this class — doctor, clinic, rx, telehealth, reviews — describes editorial positioning, not service provision. To be explicit: Semax Reviews is not staffed by doctors, does not operate a clinic, and does not conduct or commission research. ## Editorial standards and sourcing methodology Every factual claim on this site is sourced to a primary reference: a peer-reviewed journal article indexed on PubMed or PubMed Central, a clinical trial registration on ClinicalTrials.gov, or a regulatory document. We do not cite secondary sources (blogs, news coverage, supplement-company white papers, forum discussions) for any quantitative claim — dose values, effect sizes, gene counts, time points. Citations are formatted with the original authors' names, journal name, year, DOI, and PMID where available. Every citation on the /references page carries a link to the original PubMed or PMC record so readers can verify the source directly. We prioritize the most recent indexed studies. The site was compiled using studies through May 2026. Where studies are updated, replicated, or contradicted by newer work, we note the newer findings. We do not selectively present only positive results — the controversies and concerns section of our research review explicitly covers the limitations of the Semax evidence base: the heavy reliance on intraperitoneal rodent models, the limited human RCT data in Western journals, the open question of parent compound versus PGP metabolite contribution, and the sourcing-quality concerns for research-grade peptides outside Russian pharmaceutical manufacturing. This site does not anticipate, endorse, or facilitate any human use of Semax outside the regulatory frameworks where it is approved. For Russia, that means the approved intranasal formulation prescribed by a licensed physician. For all other jurisdictions, Semax is not approved, and its use outside Russia is not within the scope of what this site documents or endorses. ## The Russian research chapter A significant portion of the clinical evidence base for Semax — including the regulatory trials that supported its Russian Federal registration — resides in Russian-language publications not indexed in PubMed or Medline. This site does not attempt to summarize that literature because we cannot verify it against primary sources accessible in English. Our review is therefore explicitly bounded: it covers the Western indexed literature (PubMed-indexed studies in English or with English abstracts), the Russian regulatory record as described in indexed English-language review articles (notably Deigin 2022 in Pharmaceutics [15]), and recent preclinical findings from 2024-2025. Readers interested in the full depth of the Russian clinical literature should be aware that a substantial body of work — including dose-response data and safety studies from the original registration program — exists but is not systematically available in English. This gap is a real limitation of any English-language literature review of Semax, and we note it explicitly rather than papering over it. --- An interactive digest of peer-reviewed research — not a clinic, not a vendor, not medical advice.