A platform for lab management, note-keeping and automation
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (Arcadia Science)
Abstract
We report a lab management concept and its no-code implementation based on general-purpose database services, such as Airtable. The solution we describe allows for integrated management of samples, lab procedures, experimental notes and data within a single browser-based application, and supports custom automations. We believe that this system can benefit a wide scientific audience by offering communication-less retrieval of information, collaborative editing, unified sample labelling and data keeping style. A template database is available at airtable.com/universe/expPcKlB7VCHE6wVK/lab-management .
Article activity feed
-
This is a really cool preprint! We use Airtable to run the internal aspects of our publishing system at Arcadia Science and would love to see more scientists taking advantage. Your example base is perfect for helping readers understand and adapt what you've built.
I've added some thoughts that I had while reading, hopefully they're helpful.
-
Supplementary Figure 3
I would make this a main figure — it seems almost like a graphical abstract of the entire paper and shows readers at a glance how different programs they might be familiar with can all work harmoniously. It might also be good to show this high-level view of the system before showing the more nitty-gritty views in Figure 2
-
Tips and guidelines
This is a super helpful section!
-
Airtable
I'd link to the example base again here too — looking at that is probably the easiest way for someone to quickly understand the concept! You've laid it out really nicely
-
custom automations
You might want to mention to readers that Airtable also enables no-code automations (and you can use Zapier for some more complicated but still no-code automation) since some labs lack even basic scripting ability. You describe "no-code implementation" early in the manuscript, so it seems important to clarify exactly what can be done without code and what strictly requires it.
Separately, you could also mention that Airtable can communicate with Slack (I see Telegram in Supp Fig 3, but I believe Slack is probably more common among scientists), Google Drive, etc.
-
Github
Typo — the "H" in GitHub is capitalized. Be sure to find and adjust all mentions (looks like there are five)
-
atomisation
You might want to define this like you did for "single source of truth" since you're using it in a bit of a unique way. How do you define an atom (aka the smallest unit) in this context?
-
objects
Typo — should be "object." I'd streamline this sentence though, it's a little redundant
-
numerous labs
Can you specify how many/what proportion?
-
survey of 233 life science labs we performed for this study
How did you do this survey? This seems like a useful dataset that others might want to cite if you provide some more methodological info (e.g., Who are the respondents? Did you post this on social media? Do you know that each respondent is from a different lab or might this not really represent 233 distinct labs?)
-
Research laboratories rely on dynamic registries of samples, experiments, and data. Keeping and updating them is essential for productive and coherent research. In addition to samples and data management, most researchers keep notes of their experimental work, typically in the form of physical lab notebooks or their electronic equivalents.
Thanks for sharing this work! This appears to be a super practical solution to a pervasive challenge in biology labs. I think you've identified some key issues with how a lot of research is done --- particularly the failures to document relationships between research objects and the sporadic nature of data recording. I have two questions about the practical aspects:
First, what's your experience been with researcher adoption? Are scientists you've approached generally eager to start using your …
Research laboratories rely on dynamic registries of samples, experiments, and data. Keeping and updating them is essential for productive and coherent research. In addition to samples and data management, most researchers keep notes of their experimental work, typically in the form of physical lab notebooks or their electronic equivalents.
Thanks for sharing this work! This appears to be a super practical solution to a pervasive challenge in biology labs. I think you've identified some key issues with how a lot of research is done --- particularly the failures to document relationships between research objects and the sporadic nature of data recording. I have two questions about the practical aspects:
First, what's your experience been with researcher adoption? Are scientists you've approached generally eager to start using your platform, or do you find that you need to persuade them or provide incentives to get them on board?
Second, I'm curious how you've considered version control for protocols. In practice, it seems quite common for small tweaks to be made at various steps by different researchers, such that the "same" protocol might accumulate a number of tiny discrepancies that add up to something more significant. There's also the issue that protocols often evolve over months or years as methods are refined. How does your system handle tracking these variations and ensuring reproducibility when protocols undergo iterative changes?
-
