The Peptide Suppliers Association™ isn't a fee-for-listing. Membership is stakeholder participation: contributing evidence to the shared dataset, peer-reviewing other members, proposing rubric updates, and voting on how the Charter evolves. Here is exactly how that works, and how contributions are recognised.
This governance charter is separate from, and complementary to, the PSA Member Charter (the six principles). This document describes the how; the Member Charter describes the what.
Why this exists. An industry standard that survives regulatory scrutiny cannot be authored in private by one company. The 750+ suppliers PepiScreen already covers become 500, then 1,000, faster if members bring their evidence, their questions, and their votes into the process. This document is the mechanism that lets them.
Four ways members contribute
Every PSA member is invited (never required) to contribute in one or more of these four categories. Contributions are logged, credited, and factor into the recognition tiers below. Zero contribution never affects a member's rating — the rubric is applied to evidence quality, not participation.
1 · Evidence contribution
Weight in recognition: 40%
Adding to the shared, cross-referenceable dataset the whole industry benefits from.
New lab tests — submit a full COA or independent lab report for one of your batches, above and beyond your original assessment.
Batch history — upload a rolling batch record so peers can see consistency across the year, not just one snapshot.
Chromatograms — submit HPLC / LC-MS chromatograms in raw form to enrich our fingerprint database and catch recycled certificates across brands.
Impurity or method notes — disclose a novel impurity profile or a method refinement other members would benefit from knowing.
2 · Peer review
Weight in recognition: 25%
Reviewing other members' evidence pre-publication, blinded, to add a second pair of expert eyes.
Rubric peer review — review a fellow member's assessment before it publishes. Reviewer identity is blinded to the member; member identity is disclosed to the reviewer.
Complaint triage — participate in an initial review panel when a public complaint is filed against a member.
Method critique — challenge a rubric outcome you disagree with; disagreements published alongside the rating.
3 · Standards evolution
Weight in recognition: 20%
Proposing and voting on updates to the Charter and the rating rubric itself.
Proposal drafting — write a formal proposal for a rubric weight change, a new principle in the Member Charter, or an assessment-tier change.
Voting — every active member has one base vote on Charter updates; contributor tiers carry additional weighted votes (see recognition tiers below).
Country working groups — shape country-specific extensions of the standard (regulatory notes, language, jurisdiction-specific evidence requirements).
4 · Community engagement
Weight in recognition: 15%
Growing the ecosystem beyond the members-only wall.
Customer education — co-author plain-language explainers for buyers (“How to read a COA,” “What semaglutide purity actually means”).
Regulator dialogue — join delegations to MHRA, TGA, FDA when peptide-oversight consultations open; PSA covers travel costs for elected representatives.
Doctor training — contribute to short videos or webinars for the growing PepiScreen prescriber directory.
Whistleblowing support — anonymously surface bad-actor conduct you observe in the industry. Confidentiality is absolute.
Recognition tiers — what contribution earns you
Contribution is logged quarterly. A member's tier can move up or down at each quarterly review depending on activity. Tiers are visible on the Association page and directory listing.
Contributor
Any active contribution in one category during a quarter.
Contributor badge on your directory listing
1 vote on Charter updates
Priority queue for re-audits
5% off next membership renewal
Senior Contributor
Sustained contribution across two categories for two consecutive quarters.
Senior Contributor badge (violet)
2 votes on Charter updates
Invited to the peer-review panel
15% off next membership renewal
One free supplier deep-dive report per quarter
Steward
Elected annually from Senior Contributors by member vote. Up to three seats.
Steward badge (gold)
3 votes on Charter updates and a seat on the Governing Council
Free membership renewal for the elected year
Speaks for PSA at regulator delegations (travel covered)
Bound by an additional conflict-of-interest declaration
The Governing Council
The Council is the body that ratifies Charter and rubric changes. Composition is deliberately weighted so no single interest — PepiScreen included — can unilaterally change the standard.
PepiScreen
Founding administrator, methodology maintainer
2 votes
Elected Contributor Stewards
Up to three seats, one-year terms, elected annually by all active members
3 votes
External Ethics Reviewer
A named physician or regulator veteran appointed for a two-year term, no supplier affiliation
1 vote
Majority rule: Charter and rubric changes require 4 of 6 votes. PepiScreen alone cannot pass a change; Stewards alone cannot pass a change; the Ethics Reviewer alone can veto self-serving PepiScreen proposals by withholding a vote. All Council decisions are minuted and published within 14 days.
Ethical rules — non-negotiable
What contribution cannot buy
Contribution never influences a member's rating. The rubric is applied to evidence quality alone. A prolific Steward supplier and a first-week Contributor face the same evaluation.
No pay-for-say. Members cannot sponsor rubric proposals, buy weighted votes, or make direct financial contributions to PepiScreen outside published membership and subscription fees.
Disclosed conflicts, always. Peer reviewers cannot review direct competitors in the same product category or country; conflicts are declared before assignment.
Blinded peer review. The reviewer never sees the member's name during rubric application; the member sees only the outcome, not the reviewer's identity, until publication.
Public correction of contributor mistakes. Where a Steward or Contributor's action produces a demonstrably incorrect outcome, the correction is published under their tier badge and factored into next quarter's tier review.
Whistleblower protection. Confidential reports of bad-actor conduct are received via an inbox no PSA member can access; investigated by the External Ethics Reviewer independently.
Charter evolution — how updates happen
Proposal. Any Contributor or above may draft a formal proposal (template published in the member area) for a rubric, Charter, or governance change.
30-day comment period. Proposal published to all members; comments and challenges added; proposer may revise.
Vote. Weighted member vote (base 1 vote / Contributor 1 / Senior 2 / Steward 3) determines whether the proposal advances to Council.
Council ratification. Governing Council votes; 4 of 6 required.
Publication and changelog. Adopted changes are versioned, dated, and appended to the change log on the Statement of Assurance page. Historical ratings are retained; recomputed scores under the new methodology carry the new version tag.
The first Council election opens Q1 2027, once PSA membership crosses 20 active members. Until then, PepiScreen exercises interim governance with published minutes reviewed by an interim External Ethics Reviewer (to be named by December 2026).
Confidence and honest limits
What this governance framework can and cannot do
What it can do: distribute authorship of the standard so it can survive regulatory scrutiny; compound the dataset advantage by turning members into contributors; make bad-faith conduct expensive and visible; give suppliers a real reason to remain PSA members rather than jump to a competitor org that offers only a listing.
What it cannot do: guarantee any specific supplier is honest; replace the independent evidence assessment (contribution and rating are separate systems); prevent every conflict of interest — only make them visible and correctable when they surface.