Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Maintaining an Effective Lab Notebook and Data Integrity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Success in Academic Surgery: Basic Science

Part of the book series: Success in Academic Surgery ((SIAS))

Abstract

Efficient, organized, and detailed data maintenance are the cornerstones of a successful laboratory. Furthermore, institutional and federal requirements mandate proper maintenance, documentation, and dissemination of experimental data in a way that is rigorous and reproducible. The complexity of data generated in the modern laboratory setting presents a significant challenge to these principles of proper record keeping and data integrity. This chapter will focus on the elements of the scientific method, data maintenance, and paper and electronic record keeping that can be used to facilitate successful laboratory operations for the surgeon-scientist conducting basic research. In addition, there is recent increased emphasis on measures to ensure experimental rigor and reproducibility supported by the scientific community and National Institutes of Health. This chapter will introduce the surgeon-scientist to the critical aspects of these requirements to ensure compliance with grant submission guidelines and common author instructions for manuscript submission.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Schreier AA, Wilson K, Resnik D. Academic research record-keeping: best practices for individuals, group leaders, and institutions. Acad Med. 2006;81(1):42–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rachinsky T, Sullivan C, Ghosh S, Resnick DS, Burton C, Armstrong M, Hanish JP, Sklan A. First-to-invent versus first-to-file: impact of the AIA. Pharm Pat Anal. 2014;3(4):353–9. https://doi.org/10.4155/ppa.14.28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Giles J. Going paperless: the digital lab. Nature. 2012;481(7382):430–1. https://doi.org/10.1038/481430a.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dirnagl U, Przesdzing I. A pocket guide to electronic laboratory notebooks in the academic life sciences. F1000Res. 2016;5:2. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7628.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Guerrero S, Dujardin G, Cabrera-Andrade A, Paz YMC, Indacochea A, Ingles-Ferrandiz M, Nadimpalli HP, Collu N, Dublanche Y, De Mingo I, Camargo D. Analysis and implementation of an electronic laboratory notebook in a biomedical research institute. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0160428. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160428.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hull C. Editorial: Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS). Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. 2011;14(9):741.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration CFR – Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=820. Accessed 30 July 2018.

  8. Macneil R. The benefits of integrated systems for managing both samples and experimental data: an opportunity for labs in universities and government research institutions to lead the way. Autom Exp. 2011;3(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1759-4499-3-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kanza S, Willoughby C, Gibbins N, Whitby R, Frey JG, Erjavec J, Zupancic K, Hren M, Kovac K. Electronic lab notebooks: can they replace paper? J Cheminform. 2017;9(1):31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-017-0221-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. The database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap. Accessed 18 July 2018.

  11. Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/. Accessed 18 July 2018.

  12. The Jackson Laboratory: donate a strain. https://www.jax.org/jax-mice-and-services/cryo-and-strain-donation/donate-a-strain. Accessed 18 July 2018.

  13. ATCC deposit services. https://www.atcc.org/en/Services/Deposit_Services.aspx. Accessed 18 July 2018.

  14. NIH Data Sharing Policy and Implementation Guidance. 2003. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm. Accessed 18 July 2018.

  15. Baker M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature. 2016;533(7604):452–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McNutt M. Journals unite for reproducibility. Science. 2014;346(6210):679.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin CP, Blumenstein R, Bradley EW, Crystal RG, Darnell RB, Ferrante RJ, Fillit H, Finkelstein R, Fisher M, Gendelman HE, Golub RM, Goudreau JL, Gross RA, Gubitz AK, Hesterlee SE, Howells DW, Huguenard J, Kelner K, Koroshetz W, Krainc D, Lazic SE, Levine MS, Macleod MR, McCall JM, Moxley RT 3rd, Narasimhan K, Noble LJ, Perrin S, Porter JD, Steward O, Unger E, Utz U, Silberberg SD. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature. 2012;490(7419):187–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11556.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. National Institutes of Health Policy and Compliance: Rigor and Reproducibility. 2018. https://grants.nih.gov/reproducibility/index.htm. Accessed 19 July 2018.

  19. Tannenbaum C, Schwarz JM, Clayton JA, de Vries GJ, Sullivan C. Evaluating sex as a biological variable in preclinical research: the devil in the details. Biol Sex Differ. 2016;7:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-016-0066-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Clayton JA, Collins FS. Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies. Nature. 2014;509(7500):282–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Almeida JL, Cole KD, Plant AL. Standards for cell line authentication and beyond. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(6):e1002476. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002476.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Lorsch JR, Collins FS, Lippincott-Schwartz J. Cell biology. Fixing problems with cell lines. Science. 2014;346(6216):1452–3. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259110.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Uphoff CC, Drexler HG. Detection of mycoplasma contamination in cell cultures. Curr Protoc Mol Biol. 2014;106:28.4.1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471142727.mb2804s106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bordeaux J, Welsh A, Agarwal S, Killiam E, Baquero M, Hanna J, Anagnostou V, Rimm D. Antibody validation. Biotechniques. 2010;48(3):197–209. https://doi.org/10.2144/000113382.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA

    Andrew J. Murphy

  2. Division of Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

    Andrew J. Murphy

Authors
  1. Andrew J. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. Murphy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Gregory Kennedy

  2. Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital, University of Tennessee Health Science Centre, Memphis, TN, USA

    Ankush Gosain

  3. UNC School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Melina Kibbe

  4. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

    Scott A. LeMaire

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Murphy, A.J. (2019). Maintaining an Effective Lab Notebook and Data Integrity. In: Kennedy, G., Gosain, A., Kibbe, M., LeMaire, S. (eds) Success in Academic Surgery: Basic Science. Success in Academic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14644-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14644-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14643-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14644-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation