Implementation of project management methodologies in microbiology research laboratories.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
The increasing complexity and collaborative nature of scientific research projects underscore the need to implement project management practices to manage resources and funding, ensure data quality, and prevent delays in project progress. Here, we introduce three major project management methodologies, including agile, waterfall, and hybrid approaches, and explore their suitability for biological and microbiological research laboratories. Variables that may influence choosing an appropriate strategy for managing projects are considered, including the size and experience of a research group. In the following article, we provide an overview of the five major stages of project planning and execution, focusing on implementing each of the discussed strategies in the research laboratory. Furthermore, we discuss the composition of the research team, and outline the responsibilities assigned to each team member based on their role in the project. This paper highlights potential risks and challenges that may negatively impact research progress underscoring the need for proper project planning. Applying proper project management methodologies is often neglected in academic research, leading to serious delays and waste of valuable resources.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
After careful review, I find that the paper is well-written and addresses an important yet under-explored topic, which makes it a valuable contribution. However, there are a few areas where the reviewer believe further refinement and depth would enhance the manuscript's relevance and impact. Given that your expertise lies in microbiology, and considering the readership of this journal, we suggest narrowing the focus of the paper specifically to microbiology research laboratories. The current scope, which appears to cover all types of research projects, may be too broad and could risk losing focus. A more targeted approach would make your findings more directly applicable to the microbiology community. You may also want to consider revising the title to reflect this more specific focus. While the choice to focus on the waterfall, agile, …
After careful review, I find that the paper is well-written and addresses an important yet under-explored topic, which makes it a valuable contribution. However, there are a few areas where the reviewer believe further refinement and depth would enhance the manuscript's relevance and impact. Given that your expertise lies in microbiology, and considering the readership of this journal, we suggest narrowing the focus of the paper specifically to microbiology research laboratories. The current scope, which appears to cover all types of research projects, may be too broad and could risk losing focus. A more targeted approach would make your findings more directly applicable to the microbiology community. You may also want to consider revising the title to reflect this more specific focus. While the choice to focus on the waterfall, agile, and hybrid project management approaches is understandable, the manuscript would benefit from a deeper discussion of these approaches in the context of other methodologies, such as Six Sigma, Critical Path Method (CPM), and other well-established project management tools. A more comprehensive discussion would help position your chosen approaches within the broader landscape of project management strategies and provide readers with a clearer understanding of why these approaches are particularly suited to microbiology research labs. The section on risks currently provides a good overview of some typical challenges in microbiology labs, but it would benefit from further depth. While it's not necessary to list every possible risk, acknowledging the variety and specificity of risks across different laboratory settings is crucial. Moreover, we recommend expanding your discussion of risk mitigation strategies, particularly around health and safety, as well as the incorporation of specific risk management frameworks such as risk registers. Additionally, addressing territory-specific legislative responsibilities related to laboratory safety and risk assessments would strengthen this section and ensure that it aligns with best practices in the field. The manuscript mentions data management and storage but lacks an in-depth connection to relevant technologies that support project management, particularly in larger laboratories. Many microbiology labs use Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS), which can play a key role in project management. We recommend expanding this section to include a discussion of such tools, with specific attention to their role in data security, legislative compliance, reputational risks, and intellectual property (IP) protection. Moreover, incorporating a brief mention of open access principles and relevant data repositories would enhance the manuscript’s real-world applicability. These additions would help bridge the gap between theory and practice, making the content more engaging for readers. Lastly, while the manuscript provides a strong foundation, expanding on the connections between project management approaches and real-world tools and practices would provide readers with a clearer, more practical understanding of how these strategies are applied in the context of microbiology research. I believe that with these revisions, your paper will make an even stronger contribution to the literature. We appreciate the hard work that has gone into this manuscript and look forward to receiving your revised version.
-
Comments to Author
It's a well written paper on project management approaches in research laboratories, and there doesn't appear to be much on this topic relating to our field, and therefore worthy of publication. However, it's perhaps lacking in a bit of depth and detail and a recognition of the endless possibilities when it comes to project complexity and risk. As the lab-based authors have microbiology expertise and are aiming to publish in this journal, perhaps the title should be specifically about microbiology research laboratories? To cover all research projects would be too broad a remit. I think it's fair for the authors to focus on three specific approaches of their choosing, however it would be good if they acknowledge the broader picture of different project management plans and explain the focus on …
Comments to Author
It's a well written paper on project management approaches in research laboratories, and there doesn't appear to be much on this topic relating to our field, and therefore worthy of publication. However, it's perhaps lacking in a bit of depth and detail and a recognition of the endless possibilities when it comes to project complexity and risk. As the lab-based authors have microbiology expertise and are aiming to publish in this journal, perhaps the title should be specifically about microbiology research laboratories? To cover all research projects would be too broad a remit. I think it's fair for the authors to focus on three specific approaches of their choosing, however it would be good if they acknowledge the broader picture of different project management plans and explain the focus on waterfall, agile and hybrid in greater context (six sigma, critical path etc). For the section on risk, the authors outline some risks typical of a microbiology lab, and although I don't believe they should try to list them all (as this would be impossible), I think they need to better acknowledge that the risks will be specific to the laboratory and instead discuss some risk mitigation systems in greater detail. Health and safety is mentioned, but risk assessments and (territory-specific) legislative responsibilities in this area are not. There are also other, more holistic, risk management strategies which can be useful tools as part of project management, such as the use of a "risk register" I also think the manuscript as it stands could also engage in greater detail with some of the available technologies which are available to support a good project management system. Many larger laboratories, for example, will have LIMS in place. Data management and storage is discussed as a concept, but it would be great to have a bit more depth linking it to legislative requirements, reputational risk of the hosting organisation, personal and IP security and a mention about the principles of open access - examples of repositories etc. I know there isn't scope in one article for a deep dive in all of these areas, but at the moment I think it's lacking links between the project management approach and real world tools which I think would make things much more relevant, useful and engaging for the readership. My only minor point is to improve the consistency in spacing between headings and text
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes