Check only a frozen submission candidate
An integrity review has little value while the document continues to change. Create an unmistakably named candidate with date and version. Record format, page count and checksum or at least file size. Where both an editable file and PDF are required, identify and inspect both.
Open the official assignment and submission instructions beside the checklist. Record only requirements that genuinely apply: for example, an originality declaration, rules for permitted assistance, AI-use disclosure, data protection, filename or appendices. This page creates no university rule. A conflict must be resolved through the published local route.
Separate stop criteria from ordinary corrections
A stop exists when submitting now would lock in a substantial unresolved integrity or procedural issue. Examples include an unattributed direct quotation, a central claim without support, relevant third-party or generated contributions lacking required disclosure, unresolved personal data, conflicting versions, or a mandatory declaration that is absent.
A stop is not an accusation. It means: do not send; identify cause; inspect source or rule; record the repair; and recheck the affected line. If timely clarification is impossible, use the official deadline or advice channel rather than guessing or replacing a requirement.
Ordinary items such as inconsistent dashes, a poor line break or an inelegant heading are non-blocking unless an actual submission rule makes them critical. This distinction prevents cosmetic work from displacing an unresolved source or confidentiality problem.
Run the gate in a fixed sequence
- Freeze the candidate and record its identity at the top of the sheet.
- Open the official submission requirements beside it.
- Answer each row with observable evidence.
- Use “open” when uncertain rather than guessing “met.”
- Move every stop into a short findings list with an owner.
- Correct the editable source, export again and update candidate identity.
- Recheck affected rows and the final file before release.
Work from high risk to formatting. Begin with contribution, evidence, data and confidentiality; inspect layout and upload details afterwards. Searches for quotation marks, comments, tracked changes and placeholders such as “source?” may reveal open items, but they never replace substantive reading.
In group work, each responsible person may confirm their contribution where the actual rules require it. A final release should not imply that one individual independently inspected every raw item if that did not happen. State the genuine review scope.
Close each stop with cause and recheck evidence
A finding records location, problem, risk, action, owner and verification. Example: “p. 34, paragraph 2 — figure 71% has no locator; original opened, p. 18 supplied; sentence checked; closed 11 September.” A bare tick does not reveal what changed.
If a claim cannot be supported in time, three defensible options remain: narrow it to an accurately labelled observation, present it as an open assumption where academically appropriate, or delete it. Adding an approximately relevant source is not a repair. Remove material with unresolved rights unless proper permission is obtained.
After any substantive edit, inspect consequences: pagination, cross-references, lists of tables, bibliography and appendices. A new paragraph reopens the source check for that passage. Give the latest export a new identity and open it independently.
Document release as a bounded statement
The final row records candidate, date, scope and any non-blocking remainder. “Released” means only that the defined controls were completed for this file. It does not guarantee that no error remains or that an institution must accept the work.
Retain the checklist and findings according to applicable privacy and retention rules. They may explain the working process but can contain sensitive information. Avoid unnecessary cloud sharing and keep personal comments out of a generic team template.
The pre-submission citation inventory supplies the detailed text-to-reference-list reconciliation. The claim–source matrix closes unresolved evidence states. Find further templates in the research methods hub, and consult the evidence-review foundation for interpreting source matches.