Skip to main content
Records Authority
Category: Records Lifecycle Concepts

Reference Materials

Also known as: RM, Reference Material, RM
Simply put

Reference materials are substances that are consistent and stable enough in their properties to serve as a dependable point of comparison when laboratories measure or test other materials. They help ensure that measurements are accurate and comparable, and can apply to a wide range of substances. Note that in the recordkeeping and information governance context, 'reference materials' more commonly denotes source documents consulted for information; the definition below reflects the measurement-science sense found in the supplied evidence.

Formal definition

In the measurement-science sense, a reference material (RM) is a material that is sufficiently homogeneous and stable with respect to one or more specified property values, established to be fit for its intended use in a laboratory setting. An RM is a generic term that may or may not carry an assigned accepted reference value (ARV); where a documented, traceable reference value accompanied by an associated uncertainty is provided, the material is more precisely termed a certified reference material (CRM). RMs are used to support functions such as calibration, method validation, and quality control. This measurement-oriented meaning should not be conflated with the recordkeeping usage, in which 'reference materials' typically refers to informational or transitory sources consulted for content rather than retained as authoritative records; that distinction falls outside the scope of the evidence provided here.

Why it matters

In measurement science, reference materials provide the shared points of comparison that allow laboratories to trust and cross-check their results. Without stable, homogeneous materials against which instruments and methods can be checked, measurements made in different laboratories, at different times, or using different equipment would be difficult to compare with confidence. Reference materials underpin the accuracy and comparability of testing across an extraordinary range of substances, from cholesterol to cement and from peanut butter to paint, supporting fields where reliable measurement carries real consequences for safety, quality, and regulatory compliance.

The distinction between a reference material (RM) and a certified reference material (CRM) matters for how much weight a result can bear. An RM may or may not carry an assigned accepted reference value, whereas a CRM is accompanied by a documented, traceable reference value and an associated uncertainty. Where decisions depend on defensible, traceable measurements, the availability of an appropriate CRM can be the difference between a result that withstands scrutiny and one that does not. Choosing a material fit for the intended use is therefore a considered decision rather than a formality.

For readers of this publication, the most important caution is terminological. In recordkeeping and information governance, the phrase 'reference materials' typically denotes source documents consulted for their content rather than retained as authoritative records. The measurement-science sense described here is distinct, and conflating the two can lead to misclassification. Professionals should be alert to which meaning is in play in any given context, since the evidence supplied here addresses only the measurement-science usage.

Who it's relevant to

Laboratory and testing personnel
Those performing calibration, method validation, and quality control rely on reference materials as dependable points of comparison. For them, distinguishing an RM from a CRM, and understanding whether a traceable reference value with associated uncertainty is available, is central to producing accurate and comparable results.
Quality and compliance staff in measurement contexts
Personnel responsible for the defensibility of laboratory measurements benefit from understanding when a certified reference material is warranted. Because a CRM provides a documented, traceable value with stated uncertainty, it supports results that can withstand scrutiny where decisions depend on measurement accuracy.
Records and information governance professionals
For this audience the term is chiefly a source of potential confusion. In recordkeeping, 'reference materials' typically means source documents consulted for content rather than retained as authoritative records, which is distinct from the measurement-science sense described here. Recognizing which meaning applies helps avoid misclassification, though the recordkeeping usage falls outside the scope of the evidence provided.

Inside RM

Non-record reference materials
Published or informational content, such as manuals, guidelines, standards, and background documents, retained for consultation rather than as evidence of an organization's own business activity. In many recordkeeping frameworks these are distinguished from authoritative records because they do not document the transactions or decisions of the holding organization.
Convenience copies
Duplicate copies of records or documents kept for ease of access by staff, where the authoritative record is held and controlled elsewhere. Depending on organizational policy, convenience copies are typically treated as transitory or non-record material and are not subject to the same retention controls as the authoritative record.
External standards and codes
Materials such as national or international standards, professional codes, and regulatory guidance held for reference. These inform practice but, unless created or received in the course of the organization's own activity, are generally maintained as reference collections rather than as the organization's records.
Working aids and templates
Blank forms, style guides, procedural checklists, and similar tools used to support work. The completed instance of a form may become a record, while the underlying template is often retained separately as a reference aid, subject to organizational policy.
Reference collections and libraries
Curated bodies of informational material, sometimes managed under library or knowledge-management arrangements rather than records controls. Distinguishing these from an organization's authoritative records is important because they typically fall outside formal retention and disposition schedules.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about RM.

Are reference materials the same as records?
No. Reference materials are typically information resources consulted to support work or decision-making, such as manuals, published guidance, standards, or research collections, whereas records are evidence of an organization's activities and transactions. A record is generally distinguished by properties such as authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usability, and it documents that something was done or decided. Reference materials, by contrast, inform an activity without necessarily evidencing it. Depending on organizational policy and context, an item may sometimes function as both, but the two categories serve different purposes and are often managed under different rules.
Should reference materials be kept under the same retention rules as records?
Not usually. Reference materials often fall outside the scope of records retention schedules because they are not authoritative evidence of business activity. In many organizations they are treated more like transitory or convenience information, retained only as long as they remain useful, though this depends on organizational policy. It is worth noting that a specific version of a reference item may sometimes need to be captured as a record, for example where it documents the criteria used for a decision. Because practice varies by organization and sector, the treatment of reference materials should be defined explicitly in policy rather than assumed.
How can we distinguish reference materials from records in a shared repository?
A practical approach is to define clear criteria in policy, then apply consistent classification at the point of capture. Consider whether an item evidences an organizational activity or decision, or whether it merely informs work. Metadata, dedicated folders or libraries, and content type labels can help separate reference collections from authoritative records. Where the boundary is unclear, guidance from records management staff and periodic review can reduce misclassification. The specific mechanisms available will depend on the systems and tools your organization uses.
Who should be responsible for managing reference materials?
Responsibility often differs from that for records. Depending on organizational structure, reference collections may be curated by a library or knowledge function, subject-matter teams, or individual users, while authoritative records typically fall under records management or information governance accountability. Clarifying ownership in policy helps avoid gaps, such as outdated reference materials being relied upon, or confusion over who may dispose of them. Assigning clear stewardship is generally advisable regardless of where responsibility ultimately sits.
How should outdated or superseded reference materials be handled?
Because reference materials are typically retained only while useful, superseded versions are often reviewed and removed once no longer needed, subject to organizational policy. Care should be taken where a particular version documented the basis for a decision, since that version may need to be captured as a record before the reference copy is discarded. Version control, review dates, and clear indications of currency can help users avoid relying on outdated guidance. Approaches vary, so the handling of superseded materials should be defined explicitly.
Should reference materials be indexed or classified for retrieval?
Indexing and classification can improve findability and reduce the risk of users relying on the wrong resource, but the approach may differ from that used for records. Reference collections are often organized by subject, topic, or currency to support consultation, rather than by the business classification structures used for records. The level of effort applied usually depends on how frequently the materials are consulted and their importance to the work, and on the tools available in your organization.

Common misconceptions

Reference materials are records because they are stored in the same system alongside records.
Physical or logical co-location does not confer record status. Whether an item is a record generally depends on whether it provides evidence of the organization's activity and exhibits properties such as authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usability, not on where it happens to be filed. Reference materials often lack this evidential character and are typically managed as non-record material.
Because reference materials are not records, they can be discarded at any time without consideration.
While reference materials are commonly outside formal retention schedules, disposal should still be considered against organizational policy and any applicable legal or regulatory obligations. In some circumstances, such as an active legal hold or a freedom-of-information request, material otherwise treated as reference may need to be preserved. Requirements depend on jurisdiction and sector.
A convenience copy is interchangeable with the authoritative record.
A convenience copy is a duplicate retained for access, whereas the authoritative record is the version subject to control across its lifecycle. Treating a copy as if it were the authoritative record can undermine integrity and create uncertainty about which version governs. The distinction between an authoritative record, a copy, a draft, and transitory information should be maintained.

Best practices

Establish clear criteria, aligned with organizational policy, for distinguishing authoritative records from reference materials, convenience copies, and transitory information, and apply the criteria consistently.
Where practical, separate reference collections from authoritative records, whether through distinct systems, storage locations, or metadata, so that retention and disposition controls are applied only to records.
Identify a single authoritative source for records and manage duplicates as convenience copies, so that staff know which version governs and copies can be dispositioned without affecting the record.
Review reference materials before disposal against organizational policy and any applicable legal or regulatory obligations, recognizing that legal holds or information-access requests may temporarily require retention; requirements vary by jurisdiction and sector.
Document the treatment of reference materials in policy and, where appropriate, in disposition or retention documentation, so the rationale for excluding them from records controls is defensible.
Periodically reassess reference collections, as material initially treated as reference may take on record status if it comes to evidence the organization's own activity or decisions.