ArticleF1000Research2016
A pocket guide to electronic laboratory notebooks in the academic life sciences.
Article in F1000Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Good clinical practice improves rigor and transparency: Lessons from the ACTIVE trial.Psychology and aging · 2022Trial
- Teaching biology in the age of distraction: attention as scientific competency in laboratory education.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2026Article
- Ten simple rules for implementing electronic lab notebooks (ELNs).PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Digitalization concepts in academic bioprocess development.Engineering in life sciences · 2024Review
- Ten simple rules for establishing an experimental lab.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- A guide to open science practices for animal research.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Finding the best fit for improving reproducibility: reflections from the QUEST Center for Responsible Research.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Article
- Making the collective knowledge of chemistry open and machine actionable.Nature chemistry · 2022Review
- Institutional ELN/LIMS deployment: Highly customizable ELN/LIMS platform as a cornerstone of digital transformation for life sciences research institutes.EMBO reports · 2020Article
- Improving the trustworthiness, usefulness, and ethics of biomedical research through an innovative and comprehensive institutional initiative.PLoS biology · 2020Article
- Towards reproducible computational drug discovery.Journal of cheminformatics · 2020Review
- Cloud-based relational database for multimodal animal data.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Every professional doing active research in the life sciences is required to keep a laboratory notebook. However, while science has changed dramatically over the last centuries, laboratory notebooks have remained essentially unchanged since pre-modern science. We argue that the implementation of electronic laboratory notebooks (eLN) in academic research is overdue, and we provide researchers and their institutions with the background and practical knowledge to select and initiate the implementation of an eLN in their laboratories. In addition, we present data from surveying biomedical researchers and technicians regarding which hypothetical features and functionalities they hope to see implemented in an eLN, and which ones they regard as less important. We also present data on acceptance and satisfaction of those who have recently switched from paper laboratory notebook to an eLN. We thus provide answers to the following questions: What does an electronic laboratory notebook afford a biomedical researcher, what does it require, and how should one go about implementing it?
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.