Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to elns-the-opinions-of-physical-chemists_tcm18-244630.pptx
Similar to elns-the-opinions-of-physical-chemists_tcm18-244630.pptx (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
elns-the-opinions-of-physical-chemists_tcm18-244630.pptx
- 1. Electronic Lab Notebooks (ELNs) The opinions of physical chemists Isobel Hogg and Alisa Becker January 2015
- 2. Today’s aims • Introduction to the project • Methodology • Results • Barriers to implementation • Impressions and conclusions • Next steps
- 3. What is an ELN and why are we interested? “An electronic lab notebook (also known as electronic laboratory notebook, or ELN) is a computer program designed to replace paper laboratory notebooks.”1 • Interest in ELNs in place of paper lab notebooks has increased in recent years, most notably in the pharmaceutical industry e.g. Accelrys and LABTrack • Faraday Division Council expressed concerns that ELNs may not meet the needs of physical chemists • We decided to interview a range of members of the physical chemistry community to assess their needs for ELNs 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_lab_notebook
- 4. Methodology • 20 telephone interviews with physical chemists • All academics • 50% supervisors, 50% group members (post-graduate students & post docs)
- 7. Interview themes 1. Problems with current ways of working 2. User experiences of ELNs 3. Attitudes to data sharing 4. Suggested requirements for ELNs 1. Practicalities 2. System design (interface, archiving, narration) 3. Features
- 8. 1. Problems with current ways of working • There is often a lack of narrative and poor levels of note taking (90%) • Difficult to find previous work / no effective data management system (75%)
- 9. Lack of narrative and poor levels of note taking • 70% of supervisors and 80% of group members said this • Suggested reasons included: o Illegible handwriting o Time consuming o Not considered a priority at the time o Not realising how difficult it would be to remember what the work was until it was too late o Being partially sighted o Laziness • Researchers found this to be a problem with both their own work AND that of former group members
- 10. Difficulties finding previous work “I’m quite worried that when I come to write things up it is going to be a struggle” “Very few people leave behind one comprehensive source where all their data is” “We have stacks of lab books but they are often hard to decipher and not very well organised” “We have big issues looking at other people’s work once they have left” “I often end up repeating work” 75% 10% 10% 5% People who have problems finding archived data Yes No Rarely Not answered
- 11. 2. Experience of ELNs and current use 15% 15% 70% Experience & don't use Experience & use No experience & don't use Breakdown of the 30% who had experience: • The “experience and don’t use” were all group members • The “experience and use” were all supervisors
- 12. Experience of data management systems/ELNs 50% 50% People using any sort of data management system/ELN Non user User DM Systems: • General digital notebook (i.e. OneNote) • Spreadsheet • Database
- 13. Requirement for a data management system 80% 15% 5% Researchers who would welcome a helpful data organisation system Yes Not answered No
- 14. Quotes from researchers on the prospect of using an ELN “I’d be very open to the idea of using one [an ELN] but none of the teams I’ve worked in have had them” “A better archiving process would save me hours of time” “A software version where you can move all your data around and keep it in one place is very appealing” “I need a program that makes recording and managing all information related to my research easy and quick” “It makes more sense to make the whole thing electronic” “I’d definitely be open to the idea of using one”
- 15. User experiences of ELNs Benefits 1. Good to have a central data storage place for everything 2. Improved accessibility to data “It works really well in terms of getting the dialogue and discussion”
- 16. User experiences of ELNs Difficulties 1. Great idea but performed really badly 2. Many well developed ELNS are unaffordable for academia “The big hurdle is getting people to not write notes in lab books on the side” “Inability to write equations is what stopped us using it” “Poor ability to tabulate data”
- 17. 3. Attitudes to data sharing 20% yes were group members 10% yes were group members 20% 20% 40% 20% Would you like to share more of your own data? Not answered Yes No Not really 30% 10% 60% Would you use other people's data before it has been published? Not answered Yes No
- 18. 4. Suggested requirements for ELNs • Practicalities • System design (interface, archiving, narration) • Features
- 19. Practicalities 1. One comprehensive source which keeps everything together (65%) o One central place (i.e. like Dropbox) through which they can access all their work, including data. 2. Portable with flexible accessibility (60%) o The ability to move the lab book around the lab and for themselves and their group to view the information from anywhere 3. Affordable with reliable and well maintained IT infrastructure o Funding for hardware and software o Ongoing costs need consideration o Must be available on different operating systems (60%)
- 20. System design 1. Effective interface design – both flexible and structured templates, easy, intuitive, effective & quick to use interface with a systematic logging system (95%) 2. Easy way to record narrative and improve note taking (90%) 3. Improve organisational structure of own work with an easy to use data archiving/storage system that is searchable (60%)
- 21. Features 1. Different access rights, a digital time stamp, electronic signatures, and track changes/roll-back functionality 2. Ability to create links to outputs from experiments 3. Ability to draw graphs, write equations, enter tables, experimental set-up sketches digitally and with a hand stylus/ drawing tool
- 22. Features continued… General Features Physical Features Ability to link to.. Molecular graphic system Equation writer Physical portability around the lab Mathematica, Matlab, Labview Automatic graph drawing Electronic signature /Digital time stamp Hand stylus/ drawing tool Jpg files, ASCII files, potentio stat files Automated storing of equipment parameters Mark/flag/tag files like in Outlook Video PDFs, instrument manuals, group presentations, posters Templates Hover-over definitions Webcam Spectra Automatic file name generation Security/password protection Chemical resistant/waterproof (tablet case) Literature Suitable for different operating systems Different access rights Voice recording/ recognition Screen prints “Free” interface Roll back system Photoshop Tables Searchable
- 23. Barriers to Implementation 1. Timing of the switch will effect how easy it is for researchers to change their way of working 2. It might not be possible to implement all suggested features e.g. • Photoshop and being affordable • A handwriting tool and being searchable 3. When work is visible to others, it may affect what researchers record 4. Costs and infrastructure may affect use in academia
- 24. • The physical chemistry community have limited experience of ELNs • There’s enthusiasm and positive attitude towards: – the concept of an ELN – a data management system – improvements in narrative recording and organisation of data • It isn't enough to develop an electronic version of a paper notebook – there are other requirements Impressions & Conclusions
Editor's Notes
- In its simplest definition, an ELN is a computer program designed to replace paper laboratory notebooks. What we set out to do, was to find out what physical chemists think about using a computer program instead of a paper notebook and what they would need it to do. The project came around for the following reasons: Use of ELNs for research in place of paper lab notebooks has increased in recent years, primarily in the pharmaceutical industry There are concerns that ELNs may not meet the needs of physical chemists as they have mainly been developed for synthetic chemists 3. We decided to interview a range of members of the physical chemistry community to assess their needs
- The group members were all students of Faraday Division Council members We identified supervisors within community to make sure we covered a range of subject areas and institutions.
- Interviewees were from across the UK and one from China The size of the bubble indicates the number of chemists interviewed from that area We covered as wide a range of institutions across the UK as possible
- We spoke to researchers from many different areas of physical chemistry. We only interviewed physical chemists and haven’t done a comparison with the opinions of other chemists.
- We consulted with people who have experience of ELN research and conducting telephone interviews to decide on the main areas of our interviews. Internally we worked with Richard Kidd and Aileen Day and Eleanor Green, and externally we spoke to Jeremy Fray from Faraday Division Council and his PhD student Cerys Willoughby. We structured our questions to cover four main categories that we identified to be important and so I’m going to present the results as per these categories. They are: Looking at current ways of working and identifying issues that people have Understanding experiences of ELNs Attitudes to data sharing – this is because of the well known features of ELNs is that they enable data sharing and so we wanted to ask about people’s attitudes towards doing so. And then finally the main part of the presentation is going to be on Suggested requirements in ELNs for Physical Chemists Requirements will be categorised into these headings; practicalities, system design and features
- The two main problems that researchers highlighted in the way they work at the moment were that they often can’t find past work (point 2) and when they do, they struggle to understand it (point 1). More detail on the next two slides. The percentages refer to the whole sample of interviews. Physical chemists often have many different pieces of equipment in their lab which they record data on electronically and they then save these data files in a folder on a central computer. They write down the name of the file in their notebook and any information that they want to record about it. These two problems are common things that most people experience with doing this.
- Lack of narrative and poor note taking was highlighted as a common problem by researchers and something that frequently stops them understanding their own and others work. Reasons for it were suggested however, the method of resolving the issue is not obvious - is it due to the equipment (i.e. paper or electronic notebook) or is it something that requires a change of practice and attitudes?
- People struggle to find work they or others have done. A lot of time spent is spent searching for data which is stored in different places and sometimes they can’t find work and end up repeating work. Note: a lot of physical chemists, especially experimentalists, have many different pieces of equipment in their lab. They run an experiment which produces data files (this can often be on more than one piece of equipment). They then have to save these files on a central computer and write down the file pathways in there paper lab notebook. This was said to be a problem with both their own work AND that of former group members and some of these quotes here were said by multiple researchers.
- We found there was very limited experience of ELNs in the physical chemistry community. 30% of researchers had experience of some sort– 15% just tested one, 15% use one now. Note: Group members’ experiences were with a pharmaceutical company, at a synchrotron and with LABTrack No-one solely used an ELN instead of a paper notebook. This is likely due to 2 reasons: university policies making a paper notebook compulsory and none of the ELNs being suitable
- This slide shows the amount of people that were using a data management system of some sort, whether this be self designed or a pre-existing program. You can see that an additional 35% of people use a data management system So, the graph shows the number of people that are using some sort of electronic system to help track their work but that these systems are not ELNs. They had mainly developed the system themselves or within their lab group and were mostly using readily available Microsoft packages like Excel and Access.
- Number of people who would welcome a data organisation system In addition to the 50% of people who already use or have experience of a data management system, an extra 30% of people said that they would like a data management system. I’ve used this graph rather than the percentage of people who wanted an ELN specifically. There was actually only a 5% difference but because so few people had experience of ELNS and therefore, what everyone imagines an ELN to be is going to be quite different. Because of this, I wanted to focus on the needs of physical chemists for some sort of electronic system that facilitates their lab work. I’ve called this a data organisation system because it might not be an actual ELN
- 75% of people responded yes to an ELN specifically Vs 80% for a data management system These quotes are showing how people felt about the idea of an ELN. There were many really positive comments about the prospect of some sort of ELN, these really are just a few These are mostly based on an idea of what it is in their head, not experience of what they are like.
- Benefits A few benefits were mentioned, although people’s experiences seemed to be more negative overall. Central storage place – one central place for all your data Access to data - accessible from anywhere, geographical locations no longer an issue, can keep track of things while you are away from the experiment and analysis, with everything in the cloud so you can access to it anywhere. Note: not everyone has internet in the labs and so how ‘access from everywhere’ works needs to be considered Improvements in recording of the dialogue – note taking ability increased when students realised that colleagues can see their work and it was good for documenting problems from the past
- Difficulties Great idea but performed really badly; they didn’t save people time, were clunky, difficult to use, difficult to get data into and link data analysis to posts, awkward navigation and time consuming to start a new entry. However, if design better, the ideas and the things that it was in theory able to do would have been helpful Cost – ones developed for industry aren't affordable in academia. There’s a lack of funding for hardware/software in grants so ELNs must be affordable and continuously supported. Other comments included: Preventing duplication of work (i.e. stopping researchers using paper lab books on the side) Writing equations Tabulating data
- A big difference between a paper notebook and an ELN is the ability to share data more easily. This can be within the scientists’ own research group, with collaborators or with external researchers outside of those they work with. This data represents opinions on sharing data with people OUTSIDE of those they already work with. The graph on the left shows how many people would like to share their data with people prior to publication. And the graph on the right shows how many people would like to use/have access to other people’s data prior to publication. Graph on the left – some people were more hesitant than others but basically 60% (20 + 40) said they don’t want to share more data This was really the same amount of people that would want to have access to other people’s data too. The general feeling in the community seems to be that data in itself is not overly helpful without the context to go with it. Very few people feel that they would want to spend time searching through other people’s data even if it was available to them. The other main reason for not wanting to sharing data was that people fear about the loss of originality. This was something that was different between supervisors and students.. IN GENREAL.. Students –less concerned about the downsides to sharing raw data and a few feel that not doing so it holds back research Supervisors – a lot more concerned about the loss of originality through sharing data.
- We’ve broken the requirements down into three main sections: Practicalities System design (interface, archiving, narration) Features Within these sections we highlight the things that were said by the most number of people. There were however many addition things said and a lot of these are included at the end of the presentation in case we have time of for reference later
- One central place Portable and accessible from any location – physical chemists often have many different pieces of equipment in their lab and they need to be able to have the notebook next to all of them Many comments were made about cost of the device - the longevity of the software was a big concern for a lot of people that I spoke to and there certainly seemed to be a big gap between really liking the potential that an ELN could provide with weighing up how realistic and safe it would be to move all their work on to something electronic. Features
- These first two points demonstrate how the design is very important . There is a need for something, and it must be made to satisfy this need. Interface: people want to be able to write freely into it (as they can with paper) but also wanted to be able to have structured templates for certain tasks Must be as easy and quick as current paper methods Must be intuitive to use Making new entries must The system needs to result in better documentation of what researchers have done, their thought process, comments from their PI. This is to help themselves and others. It should also be used for notes on nuances in peoples' work to help when taking over of previous projects. All narrative should be able to be hidden/unhidden on request. Note: the problems with note taking might not be solved by an electronic system 3. Organisational Structure – it must be searchable but also organise and link data well. The design of it needs to stop people having to spend a lot of time looking for previous work and stop them repeating work (see slide “problems with current ways of working”)
- A lot of different features came out during the interviews. They are grouped in to the most common here but on the next slide I have listed all the different thing people mentioned. Ability to roll back updates if someone accidently changes something or have NO ability to delete anything and/or it also needs to have a track changes feature and ability to track the most recently edited decision Note: only 30% specifically said this but I’m certain that if we had asked, people would have said it was essential. Many different things were mentioned by many different people for this. Some of these included… Molecular graphic system, literature/ Endnote compatibility, anything we'd normally print and stick in, Spectra, jpegs, pictures from LEED, screen shots, voice ad video recording, links to mathematic and Matlab 3. Many features were mentioned such as graph drawing tools, equation writing, ability to tabulate data and hand drawing. See next slide for other features mentioned.
- Timing – for example reluctance to change working methods half way through a PhD, especially to something that hasn't been well tried and tested If the reality of what can be achieved is quite different to what they want though, this could influence their enthusiasm. Of course there could be various reasons that some features can’t be achieved. One in particular is that it seems some of the proposed and desired features might be mutually exclusive. For example, having a hand drawing pen and having notes that are searchable Researchers may be more anxious in what they write down when they know that others can view it. This is something that supervisors mentioned they had noticed to be the case. This is important to address implementation so that ELNS they don’t hold back the freedom that currently exists in paper notebooks. Students can be reluctant to put something wrong in a place where lots of people can view it and so this could limit the amount they feel comfortable writing, or what results they record. Cost – this came up in various ways throughout the interviews. It was mentioned in terms of lack of funding for new hardware and software generally Cost of ELN software to enable everyone to access it
- ELN usage has increased over recent years, particularly in industry, and there are a large number available but it seems the academic physical chemistry community have had little experience and/or use to date The concept of an ELN was generally quite a popular, but these opinions weren’t based on much knowledge of what is available or achievable A data management system – this could be covered in the point above about and ELN (if it can do this) or this might be a separate concept Improvements in narrative recording/note taking – this stood out as the biggest problem researchers face and a way of doing this seemed like it would really help improve efficiency in their work It isn't enough to develop an electronic version of a paper notebook – This wouldn’t be a big enough incentive to encourage people to change their current practice. It really needs to offer something extra.