Research and Source Management

Source Inventory

Organize primary and secondary sources by ownership, access, relevance, authority, limitations, permissions, and remaining research gaps before drafting.

Free editable Markdown · Researchers, writers, and editors · Updated July 30, 2026

Download Markdown

Accessible HTML preview

Blank template

The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.

Project scope

Project or article: [Name]
Research question: [Primary question]
Audience and decision: [Who needs what]
Research owner: [Name or team]
Cutoff date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Restricted topics or data: [Handling requirements]
Source standard: [What evidence important claims require]

Source record

Source ID: [Stable internal identifier]
Title: [Exact title]
Owner or publisher: [Responsible entity]
Type and role: [Primary, definition, context, expert, or lead]
Original URL or location: [Authorized location]
Publication date and version: [Record both]
Access date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Supported claim: [Precise statement]
Limitations or conflict: [Scope, method, perspective, or interest]
Permission status: [Quote, reproduce, store, or restricted]
Decision: [Use, verify, replace, context only, or reject]

Inventory review

Central claims have suitable evidence, not just many links.
Summaries are traced to underlying sources where possible.
Editions, versions, jurisdictions, and populations match the draft.
Contradictory findings are recorded rather than silently discarded.
Restricted material has appropriate access controls.
Quotations and figures retain page, table, or timestamp context.
Gaps have actions, owners, and deadlines.
The final inventory is accessible to the writer and fact-checker.

How to use this template

List the project question, planned claims, source requirements, and any access or permission constraints.
Add every candidate source with its type, owner, version, location, research role, and access date.
Evaluate the exact claim each item supports, plus its methodological and contextual limits.
Group duplicates, investigate contradictions, and assign actions for missing or weak evidence.
Mark sources approved for use and transfer the inventory with notes, files, and update ownership.

Inventory by research role

Classify each item by the role it plays: primary evidence, authoritative definition, contextual reporting, expert interpretation, example, or lead for further checking. “Primary” does not automatically mean complete or unbiased; it means closest to the event, data, rule, or claim being examined. Record the owner or publisher, original location, date, version, and how access was obtained. Save a stable identifier or permitted archive location when pages may change, while respecting copyright and access controls.

Evaluate fitness for a specific claim

Assess relevance at the level of the statement you intend to write. A credible report about one population does not necessarily support a claim about another, and a current product page cannot establish a historical feature without an archived version. Note methodology, sample, jurisdiction, conflicts, missing context, and whether the source reports facts or offers interpretation. Flag summaries that point to evidence you have not read. Replace them with the underlying document where possible rather than citing a citation chain you cannot verify.

Make gaps and decisions visible

An inventory is valuable because it shows what the team does not yet know. Mark duplicate sources, contradictions, inaccessible materials, stale evidence, and unanswered questions. Give each gap an action: obtain the primary record, seek another perspective, narrow the claim, label uncertainty, or remove the point. Editors should be able to see which sources are cleared for quotation, which contain restricted information, and which require a later update. Do not let a large source count disguise weak coverage of the central question.

See the fields in context

Fictional example: town tree-care explainer

Birchhaven and all referenced documents are invented to demonstrate a source inventory.

Source A: Fictional municipal tree policy, version 3; primary rule source for permit requirements in Birchhaven only.
Source B: Invented university extension guide; contextual source for pruning principles, not local legal requirements.
Source C: Interview with a fictional parks coordinator; useful for process explanation, with factual details checked against the policy.
Gap: No verified source yet supports the draft's claim about average permit time, so the claim is held.
Decision: Publish the stated service target only if the responsible department provides a current public record.

Frequently asked questions

Is a primary source always the best source?

It is often essential for what an organization did, said, measured, or requires. It may still need context, methodological review, or independent corroboration.

Should rejected sources stay in the inventory?

Yes, with a concise reason. This prevents another team member from repeating the same dead end and preserves the rationale behind evidence choices.

What if a useful source is behind a paywall?

Record legitimate access and citation details. Do not copy or redistribute material beyond permission, and find accessible supporting context for readers when appropriate.

How should source contradictions be handled?

Check whether definitions, populations, periods, and methods differ. Report meaningful disagreement or narrow the claim instead of choosing the most convenient result.