Build a working record, not a defensive dossier
The folder should explain the ordinary scholarly route: how the question developed, which literature was considered, which data release produced a result and what assistance entered the work. Its first role is quality control. If a question arises later, contemporaneous records reduce dependence on memory.
Do not save every temporary copy without purpose. A useful object has a function, date, responsible role and connection to the dissertation. Redundant downloads, private scratch notes and uncontrolled duplicates increase both search effort and confidentiality risk. Preserve raw states, consequential decisions and formal approvals.
Make the index the single route into evidence
Create a register in 00_index. Each row gives the record ID, title, date, version, responsible role, path, sensitivity class and dissertation connection. Use a precise connection such as “Table 4, exclusion of case P017” rather than “data analysis”.
Stable IDs can encode record type: S-014 for a source check, D-006 for a data decision and A-021 for an analytical run. The identifier does not change when the file moves. It need not appear throughout the final dissertation; the internal index is enough if you can navigate from a claim to its evidence and back to the exact release used.
Never place passwords, tokens or private keys in the register. Refer to an approved credential service. For protected personal data, a broadly readable index should show only the sensitivity class, responsible custodian and controlled location, not participant details.
Preserve source and writing decisions selectively
A search log records question, service, query, filters, date and selection reason. A claim-source-location matrix identifies the precise support and context for central propositions. Keep verified bibliographic metadata and your notes, but do not build a shared collection of full texts that you are not entitled to redistribute.
Direct quotations need edition, location and checked wording. Paraphrases need the proposition supported and relevant limits. For changing web material, record access date and an authorised archived state where appropriate. The honest literature-search workflow supplies the search fields.
Writing history should preserve meaningful releases, not every keystroke. Identify the working draft, subject-reviewed version and final edit. For human or technological assistance, record task, scale, retained contribution and your verification. Reviewer comments become useful evidence only when linked to the version that was reviewed and the resulting decision.
Connect raw data to every reported result
The data folder may hold an inventory rather than the protected records themselves. Identify the controlled location, release, checksum, provenance, access authority and responsible role. Keep raw evidence unchanged. Cleaning and transformation should create new identified states with a reproducible log.
Each reported analytical run needs an input release, code or procedure version, software environment, parameters and outputs. Record manual decisions, exclusions and failed runs when they explain why the final specification was chosen. A polished result without the path that produced it is not an adequate integrity record.
Test the route in an empty working folder or ask a second person to reproduce one central table. Preserve the outcome, discrepancy and resolution. The honest analysis audit trail explains how to connect that evidence to interpretation.
Record approvals, contributions and competing interests
Store approvals, consent versions, data-access decisions and subject reviews with dates. Connect an approval to the specific release that was examined. A generic message saying that a draft “looks fine” does not automatically cover a substantially revised dissertation.
Include contributor roles and competing-interest reviews. Record who designed, collected, analysed, drafted and checked. This internal history does not by itself determine authorship, but it makes actual work and dependencies inspectable. Keep necessary private information under controlled access.
The research integrity hub places these records in their wider context. The 20-point good practice audit can serve as a closing index. A plagiarism-check foundation guide complements source review but cannot replace data, contribution or approval evidence.
Freeze a readable submission package
- Copy the exact final document and submitted appendices into
08_submission. - Record filenames, timestamps and checksums in the index.
- Check chapter, table and appendix references against that release.
- Close placeholders or mark them as real limitations.
- Review access permissions and retention periods under project rules.
- Perform a recovery test for the central evidence.
- After submission, add only versioned supplements; never overwrite the package.
Add a short README explaining purpose, folder logic, naming rules, access levels and where an audit should begin. A reviewer should be able to locate the evidence for a central claim without searching the entire project drive.
Maintenance rules that prevent decay
- Use one authoritative index rather than competing inventories.
- Assign a responsible role for every protected data location.
- Recheck links and contacts at milestones.
- Record why a version was superseded.
- Retain exports from services that may change.
- Remove redundant copies through an authorised process, not ad hoc deletion.
- Keep the submission receipt with the exact submitted bytes.