With thanks to Mary Donaldson, University of Glasgow for capturing these highlights of this drop-in session.

On the 20^th August 2026 we held the second drop-in session for our wider Research Notebook Community. This was an informal session without an agenda which provided an opportunity for people to discuss topics of interest or bring up questions in the group situation. 

To start us off, PSDI announced that they have just published their white paper on their experience of rolling out an ELN in the chemistry department at Southampton. https://zenodo.org/records/22014573/latest 

Discussion: 

Where to start with ELNs? Is it a good idea to aim for the same ELN for all schools / departments? They don’t all have the same functionality. Is it better to focus on individual disciplines? 

PSDI decided to specifically focus on Chemistry because their resource came from that department. They worked with the department to find a solution that met the needs of that department (while trying to get something that could provide wider flexibility for the future). The trial roll-out was successful and the tool is now implemented in the chemistry department (see link to white paper above). They are about to start a trial in Cancer Sciences. 

Another facility has been looking at ELNs. They surveyed their scientists (what do they currently use? What are they familiar with from other institutions and facilities? What would they like?). An observation from feedback was that something resembling a free text document where scientists can add any info relevant to the experiment would be most useful. Also helps if it can be connected to the equipment with direct automatic input from machines to the ELN. It must be able to connect to multiple systems to gather all the information about an experiment. 

A third institution that has a well-established ELN process started by asking what users wanted. They discovered that when you ask this, you find out that users all want different things but the most important thing was to document the science accurately, capturing all aspects of the process. To enable this, the institute went down a very general route using a wiki. It can be adapted for the different user requirements and can be linked to different systems. This has now been rolled out to around 40 groups and they haven’t yet found anything it can’t do.  The wiki runs on the Confluence platform. The support team provide a template for the wiki and group leaders control access. Guidance to researchers is provided to researchers in Standard Operating Procedures and can be demonstrated to users. Drop-in sessions are also planned to provide additional support. 

There are lots of case studies and resources available in the community: 

ELN finder – good comparison of the ELNs currently available (mostly academic focussed). Can filter based on approx. 40 criteria and different connectivity and module options. https://eln-finder.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/  

Case study on ELNs at the University of Glasgow (the situation up until 2020 still pertinent): https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/220623/. 

Glasgow guide on using OneNote as an ELN: https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/220623/ 

PSDI guidance on OneNote https://guidance.psdi.ac.uk/docusaurus-pages/docs/guidance/notebooks/examples/onenote and case study https://zenodo.org/records/18256918  

JISC procurement process. 

The University of Glasgow have been attempting to procure an electronic research notebook tools using this process.  They have been trying to embed better support for electronic research notebooks since 2012. See the case study listed above. Can’t share detailed info on current procurement situation due to confidentiality of procurement process. What was learned: 

• It wasn’t as light-touch as we imagined 

• We had to cross-check Jisc’s requirements against our own list. This was not trivial.  

• We had not been clear about our user numbers. Although we were eventually looking for a site licence, we didn’t expect high numbers. This affected the prices we were quoted.  

Next steps: we will revisit our requirements and try again.  This could be a full tender or another approach working with advice from our procurement experts.  Once we’re finished, we should be able to share more info on our requirements. 

Final thoughts from the drop-in session: 

• There are lots of resources and case studies available (see above and other entries in this wordpress site) but requirements of individual institutions or departments can be variable. There is no real short-cut to specification and procurement process. 

• An exit strategy is very important for users and institutions but is missing from some tools.  

• Lots of institutions are looking for shared templates and guidance. PDSI are keen on sharing templates. They have two at the moment, a general one and a synthesis one. So far they’ve not been asked to develop other ones. 

• BZH-Universität Heidelberg have shared a repository for ELN templates: GitHub – sfb1638/elabftw-templates: Repository to share and discuss eLabFTW templates 

• PSDI also interested in interoperability, APIs, technical standards etc. If we were all using standardised templates, the data should be easier to move between systems.  

Coming up: 

Some interest was expressed in updating the OneNote user guides. 

There was a general interest in seeing and sharing templates for ELNs (both subject specific and general) 

The date for our next ELN drop-in meeting will be announced via our mailing list WGRESEARCHNOTEBOOKS@jiscmail.ac.uk Feel free to sign up via the jiscmail lists. 

Please feel free to use the mailing list to ask questions and share news. 

On the 4th of June the Research Notebook Community held our first drop-in session for the wider community, where people could grab a coffee and come and chat about all things reseach notebooks for an hour. We want these sessions to be an informal meeting where those in the research notebooks community could drop in for as long or as little as they wanted to have a chat about the good, the bad and the confusing particularly when it comes to using an electronic research notebooks in a research institution.

This time around we had a broad range of people join us, from seasoned hands in the research notebooks community to those who are taking the first steps on their electronic research notebooks journeys. There was no set agenda, with those that came bringing topics to discuss or questions to ask the group.

Although the session was an informal drop in, we still want to provide an overview of the conversations, both to provide a record and give those that couldn’t make it (or who are working out if they want to come to the next one) a flavour of what was discussed. So, in no particular order:

• There is a wide variety of electronic research notebook solutions that are being used across institutions, both in terms of the platforms being used, and in their implementation. Even those using the same platforms utilise them in different ways depending on their needs.
• People need low-cost solutions due to institution restraints, yet low-cost options (such as OneNote, a popular low-cost option) have drawbacks, such as lacking specialist functionality, the ability to provide true provenance tracking, or any long-term robustness.
• How the most successful implementations have come from institutions where they have overcome cultural and behavioural barriers, such as:
  o Lack of staff time to set up or support an electronic research notebook installation
  o Resistance from new users that didn’t want to change current practices
  o Lack of understanding from users to the benefits of electronic research notebooks.
• The importance of engaging with leadership teams to gain support and backing
• Understanding who your user base is, and providing a tailored electronic research notebook experience for them
  If that all sounds interesting or you’re sitting there thinking “well I can add to those conversations” we will be having our second session on the 20th of August at 10:00 BST, so get ready to grab a coffee and a thought you want to discuss or chat about and come along and join us for an hour (or however long you can) to have a chat about electronic research notebooks. You can find joining details for this meeting here: https://researchnotebooks.org/event/electronic-research-notebook-drop-in-session-2/

On the 12th of March the Electronic Research Notebook (ERN) community met online to share tales of successes when it comes to the successful implementation and adoption of ERN’s across the community, followed up with a selection of interactive discussions focusing on 5 key areas that are near and dear to community.

Our success stories came from across the UK academic field*. We heard how OneNote has been successfully used (in different ways) from the Keele Universities’ Chloe Harold and Chris Hawes in addition to the University of Southampton’s Philip Leadbitter. Both talks looked at different challenges that arose during the implementation and rollout of this tool and how the different groups overcame them.

Danny Garside of the Digital Research Academy explained how they successfully implemented the open-source notebook Logseq and Git in the National Institute of Health (USA) and explained the benefits of using open-source software in the ERN space.

Samantha Pearman-Kanza in contrast, provided an in-depth look at the how the University of Southampton successfully piloted a commercial level ERN in an academic environment, this talk detailed the different considerations for implementing digital tools, and explained how this tool is now being rolled out to the rest of the department.

Jonathan Hirst of the University of Nottingham discussed AI4Green, an open-source ERN that was developed in-house. Jonathans talk explained the key aim of AI4Green, which is to make science more sustainable by providing inbuilt tools to aide researchers in picking the most sustainable paths to the outcomes they desire.

The talks were drawn to a close by James A J Wilson from University College London, who discussed the universities implementation of RSpace. This talk focused on the process of selecting an appropriate ERN for their University and what factors led to the choice of RSpace to be UCLs institutionally supported ERN.

After a Q&A session with all the speakers, and a chance for some refreshments we broke into 5 different groups to discuss:

1. Hardware considerations for ERNs
2. How to choose the appropriate ERN
3. What at the differences in requirements for Teaching vs Research ERNS
4. Making the business case for your ERN
5. What adoption strategies are there for ERNs

These breakout room sessions ran twice for 30 minutes each, enabling participants to take part in two different topics of discussion. These were followed by a group feedback session with all the attendees to ensure that everyone involved could benefit from the knowledge shared across the different groups. The discussions differed each time, with a variety of individuals either providing input or looking for answers to questions that they had. More detailed information about these discussions will be made available in due course, but to provide a sneak peak, at the bottom of this article are the top 3 tips that were gleaned from each session.

This was a great meeting and chance to bring individuals from across the UK to celebrate our colleagues’ successes in their institutions, and how we can best capitalise on these successes and take them back into our own institutions to continue the progress the bringing ERNs into our communities. We are a looking forward to welcoming everyone back for our next event in the not-too-distant future, so please do keep your eyes out for more information on that.

*All of the talks have been recorded and are available via this playlist on the PSDI YouTube channel

Discussion Outputs

Hardware Considerations for ERNS

• Provide secure dedicated in-lab hardware for your ERNS
  This avoids duplication of data entry, ensures continuity between users, reduces contamination risks of devices being moved in and out of the lab, and improves data security by eliminating the use of personal devices in the lab.
• Don’t underestimate infrastructure costs and requirements
  Static hardware devices (e.g. PCs) should be placed near fumehoods/relevant equipment to enable convenient usage, and space should be created around the lab where portable devices need to be used, stored and charged. Good quality internet connections/WIFI and available power sockets are a must.
• Leverage legacy / existing hardware where possible
  Many ERNs can be run on relatively low spec machines if they can run a browser, refurbished devices or hardware that is considered “end of life” for more computationally intensive activities can often run ERNs perfectly well.

Choosing the Appropriate ERN

• Use a rigorous requirements gathering process to prioritise the features and characteristics that matter most to your institution
  Engage with the potential users, use data gathering techniques (e.g. surveys and interviews) and run trials to identify critical features and disciplinary requirements.
• Multi-tool eco systems aren’t necessarily the enemy
  Many institutions have concluded that there is no single ERN that meets all their needs. Consider whether a small suite of tools could be a better option to address different disciplinary needs.
• Evaluate Cost models against realistic usage
  Consider adoption patterns and tiers of licenses (or open-source options) and avoid over-licensing. Remember, new terms can be negotiated if more licenses are required, and staff/student turnover will free up licenses for new starters. 

Requirements for ERNS for Teaching vs Research

• Recognise the different requirements for teaching and research
  Teaching and research have different requirements, sometimes institutions choose to use different systems to meet these needs. Even if those needs can be made by the same system, it is important to take the time to configure templates, policies, required documentation to match these different requirements (e.g. simplified health and safety forms for students vs staff).   
• Support smooth transitions from Undergraduate to Postgraduate
  Whether you are usingdifferent systems or the same system, it is important that the processes and practices support a smooth transition from Undergraduate to Postgraduate (e.g. providing a simplified template for first years and slowly building up their requirements and note taking capabilities over the years to prepare them for the level of work required at postgraduate level).
• Consider different hardware needs and approaches
  Hardware should be consistent across teaching laboratories, and there should be enough devices per laboratory to support the number of students. Hardware setups for research labs can differ substantially, it depends on the nature of the research, setup of the lab, amount of researchers etc, some setups may work best with static devices near relevant pieces of equipment and some may call for portable hardware that can be moved around the laboratory

Making the Business Case for your ERN

• Demonstrate the value added for research integrity, compliance and embedding the ELN within existing mandatory workflows.
  Highlight FAIR principles, auditability and safety benefits and the need to meet funder and institutional requirements.Demonstrate how theERN can be integrated with existing workflows or mandatory processes e.g. Health and Safety to enhance the current processes.
• Present a balanced cost narrative demonstrating savings and investments
  Note where direct financial savings will be made (e.g. paper lab books) and make sure to include the other ways that time/money will be saved e.g. researchers being able to find their own work (or others) and not needlessly repeating experiments because they couldn’t access (or didn’t know about) previous attempts.
• Anticipate and mitigate against risk with data exit strategies and interoperability considerations
  Create a solid data exit strategy for the chosen ERN to avoid vendor lock in and future proof your records. Use this to demonstrate how data can be retrieved, backed up and migrated.

Adoption Strategies for ERNs

• Prioritise Group Leaders, new starters, and enthusiastic parties for early adoption
  New starters who don’t already have entrenched ways of working make for fantastic early adopters, as do enthusiastic parties who actively want to use the ELN. Additionally, getting group leaders, and department heads etc on board drives adoption via a top-down approach.
• Provide hands-on training and continued support
  Ensure that all relevant parties are trained (e.g. not just the main researchers, group leads, health and safety staff, teaching staff, anyone involved in administering or developing the ELN) and continue to provide support and points of contact to ensure continued engagement
• Remove financial barriers
  Avoid charging individual researchers or groups, provide licenses via the institution to increase and enable uptake.