A researcher asks a practical question that many of us have quietly wondered about: can you attach supplementary material to your main paper in a single submission, or will that trigger a desk rejection? The instinct to combine files is understandable. Splitting your work into two uploads feels like forcing a separation that doesn't serve the science. But the answer, as with most submission guidelines, is not about what feels efficient. It's about what the venue has explicitly asked for, and ignoring that expectation can cost you the review you're hoping for.
This tension between convenience and compliance is exactly the kind of friction that shapes how we work with data and documents. We often see similar dynamics in the broader world of machine learning tools, where the goal is to reduce friction without sacrificing structure. For instance, when exploring real-world computer vision deployments, the gap between a model that works in a notebook and one that runs reliably on edge devices mirrors the gap between a submission that meets the letter of the guidelines and one that meets the spirit. Both require respecting constraints that aren't always obvious. The same principle applies here: a supplementary file is not just an add-on, it's a distinct component with a purpose, and merging it with the main paper can obscure that purpose.
Our take is straightforward: do not risk the desk rejection. Follow the submission instructions exactly, even if it feels redundant. The people reviewing your paper have likely built systems that reward clarity and penalize ambiguity. They are not trying to make your life difficult, but they are trying to maintain a standard. If you're feeling constrained by traditional submission processes, it's worth exploring how modern tools can empower your workflow, but that doesn't mean bending the rules of a specific venue. The practical answer is to separate the files, upload them as requested, and move on. It's a small cost for the benefit of a clean review process.
What we would tell a reader who asked us directly: your instinct to consolidate is fine, but it's not worth the risk. A desk rejection here isn't a judgment on your science, it's a judgment on your attention to detail. And in a field where reproducibility and transparency matter, that detail is part of the evaluation. So yes, split the files. It's the boring, compliant choice, and that's exactly why it's the right one. The open question to watch is whether future submission systems will become flexible enough to handle combined uploads gracefully, but until then, play by the rules that exist. Your paper deserves a fair shot, and that starts with following the instructions.