A supplementary file can help readers follow a material claim back to its documentation. Simply attaching every PDF in a project folder, however, can leave readers unsure which report applies, who produced it and whether the attachment is complete.
Choose documents by the claim they support
Start with the manuscript’s material statements. For each one, identify the supporting document, the relevant lot and the exact part of the record that matters. A general supplier brochure may explain a service without supporting a particular sample result.
An original supplement index might distinguish a certificate for lot A, an author-generated spectrum for sample A2 and a spreadsheet mapping experiments to containers. These documents have different authors and different roles.
Include enough context to interpret the evidence. A cropped numerical result without its sample identifier, method or reporting basis may be less useful than a complete, clearly indexed report.
If several documents repeat the same information, choose a readable structure instead of burying the decisive evidence among duplicates. Explain which version is authoritative for the study.
Check what can be redistributed
Wiley’s permissions guidance explains that reuse of third-party material can require permission and appropriate acknowledgement. It also addresses authors reusing their own previously published work, where publishing agreements can matter. Check the applicable licence or permission for the specific material and destination.Wiley — Obtaining Permission to Reproduce Material (opens in a new tab)
Possession of a reagent report does not by itself explain the terms under which it may be republished. Check any relevant agreement, licence or issuer instruction before attaching it to a public supplement.
| Question | Record to retain |
|---|---|
| Who owns or controls reuse? | Identified issuer or rights holder |
| What allows this use? | Applicable licence, permission or other documented basis |
| What attribution is needed? | Required credit and document identifier |
| Are there restrictions? | Relevant limits and the planned response |
A link to an authorised public copy may be appropriate when redistribution is not established, although it should be checked for accessibility and stability. Linking does not remove the need to describe the evidence accurately.
Make edits and omissions visible
If personal contact details or unrelated commercial information need removal, label the shared file as a redacted copy and record the reason. Retain the original securely within the project’s authorised records.
Do not edit an issuer’s conclusion to make it more favourable or replace its wording with the study team’s interpretation. Put commentary in a separate explanatory note with a clear author.
A shortened extract should identify the source document and the omitted context. Check whether the missing pages contain qualifications that affect the reader’s interpretation of the visible result.
Test the supplement as a reader
Open the assembled files from the final package, not just from the working folder. Confirm that file names, captions and manuscript references agree and that a reader can identify the material without private background knowledge.
Check legibility at ordinary magnification and ensure tables retain their units and footnotes. Searchable text is helpful, but an imperfect extraction should not replace the visible original when interpreting a technical result.
Keep a manifest of the files actually submitted and record the submission version. If the manuscript changes which lot or result it discusses, revisit the supplement rather than assuming it remains aligned.
Good supplementary documentation shortens the path from a claim to its evidence. It should make the provenance clearer, without suggesting that attachment to a paper independently validates the document.
Sources and further detail
- Wiley — Obtaining Permission to Reproduce Material (opens in a new tab)
Publisher guidance inspected for third-party reuse, acknowledgement and previously published author material. The decision record is an original workflow, not legal advice or a universal permission rule.
Sources checked 20 September 2026. Reporting examples are illustrative unless explicitly identified as supplied-document transcriptions. This article has not undergone independent scientific peer review.