Download
Share
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Electronic laboratory notebooks in a public-private-partnership

, , , , , , , , ,
1 ScreeningPort, Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology (IME), Hamburg, Germany
2 Department of Physics, University of Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy
3 Research, Basilea Pharmaceutica International AG, Basel, Switzerland
4 Department of Life Sciences & Chemistry, Jacobs University Bremen, Bremen, Germany
5 Innovation, Performance and Technology, GlaxoSmithKline, Collegeville, Pennsylvania, United States of America
DOI
10.7287/peerj.preprints.2325v1
Published
Accepted
Subject Areas
Computer Education, Mobile and Ubiquitous Computing, Network Science and Online Social Networks, Social Computing
Keywords
public-private-partnership, open access, Innovative Medicines Initiative, Electronic laboratory notebook, New Drugs for Bad Bugs, IMI, PPP, ND4BB, collaboration, sharing information
Copyright
© 2016 Vaas et al.
Licence
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
Cite this article
Vaas LAI, Witt G, Windshügel B, Bosin A, Serra G, Bruengger A, Winterhalter M, Gribbon P, Levy-Petelinkar CJ, Kohler M. 2016. Electronic laboratory notebooks in a public-private-partnership. PeerJ Preprints 4:e2325v1

Abstract

This report shares the experience during selection, implementation and maintenance phases of an electronic laboratory notebook (ELN) in a public private partnership project and comment on user feedback. In particular, we address which time constraints for roll-out of an ELN exist in granted projects and which benefits and/or restrictions come with out-of-the-box solutions. We discuss several options for the implementation of support functions and potential advantages of open access solutions. Connected to that, we identified willingness and a vivid culture of data sharing as the major item leading to success or failure of collaborative research activities. The feedback from users turned out to be the only angle for driving technical improvements, but also exhibited high efficiency. Based on these experiences, we describe best practices for future projects on implementation and support of an ELN supporting a diverse, multidisciplinary user group based in academia, NGOs, and/or for-profit corporations located in multiple time zones.

Author Comment

This is a submission to PeerJ Computer Science for review.

Supplemental Information

Supplement to Supplement Articel S2

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2325v1/supp-5

Supplement Article & Dataset S2

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2325v1/supp-6

Additional Information

Competing Interests

Lea A.I. Vaas, Gesa Witt, Björn Windshügel, Philip Gribbon and Manfred Kohler are employees of Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology - ScreeningPort, (IME-SP)

Adrian Bruengger is an employee of Basilea Pharmaceutica International AG.

Cindy J. Levy-Petelinkar is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline.

Author Contributions

Lea A.I. Vaas conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, performed the computation work.

Gesa Witt conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables.

Björn Windshügel conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Andrea Bosin wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Giovanni Serra reviewed drafts of the paper.

Adrian Bruengger reviewed drafts of the paper.

Mathias Winterhalter conceived and designed the experiments, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Philip Gribbon prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Cindy J. Levy-Petelinkar wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Manfred Kohler conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, performed the computation work.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data has been provided as supplemental files.

Funding

The research leading to these results discussed here was conducted as part of the TRANSLOCATION consortium (http://www.translocation.eu/) and has received support from the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) Joint Undertaking under Grant Agreement no. 115525, resources which are composed of financial contribution from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) and EFPIA companies’ in kind contribution. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies
Download
Content
Alert
Just enter your email

Download article

Electronic laboratory notebooks in a public-private-partnership
PDF Save to Mendeley RIS XML BibTeX
  Visitors   Views   Downloads