What does this research mean for the field?

A structured, user-centered implementation strategy, combined with structured training and technical support, successfully facilitates the institutional adoption and integration of Electronic Laboratory Notebooks (ELNs) into routine research practice. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.METHODOLOGICAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

Evaluate the institutional implementation, onboarding framework, and user acceptance of the open-source electronic laboratory notebook eLabFTW to improve research data management and FAIR compliance.

August 22, 2026PLoS ONEOpen Access

Digital transformation in laboratory documentation: Insights from an eLabFTW case study and a survey-informed onboarding framework

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

CJChristian Jäger MZMagdalena Zagrodnick BSBenjamin Schwede

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Case study demonstrates successful adoption of an electronic laboratory notebook in academic research teams, highlighting the necessity of user-centered onboarding and institutional support.

Key Points

Evaluate the institutional implementation, onboarding framework, and user acceptance of the open-source electronic laboratory notebook eLabFTW to improve research data management and FAIR compliance.
Conducted a multi-phase implementation involving stakeholder engagement, an interdisciplinary pilot phase, and technical infrastructure integration.
Surveyed institutional researchers (n = 55) regarding documentation practices, system requirements, and adoption barriers.
Developed open-source Shiny applications, onboarding checklists, and Apache Superset analytical dashboards to facilitate platform rollout.
Survey respondents identified major documentation hurdles, including time burden (67%), inefficient organization (63%), and retrieval difficulties (63%), despite high baseline reliance on spreadsheets (87%) and paper (85%).
Crucial adoption requirements included user-friendliness (90%), structured training (71%), and continuous technical support (52%).
Across a 22-month rollout period, platform adoption reached 237 registered users across 32 research teams, generating 4,263 active experiments.

Cite This Study

Jäger et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a895ffeca7ade938187ef96 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355558

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

August 22, 2026PLoS ONEOpen Access

Digital transformation in laboratory documentation: Insights from an eLabFTW case study and a survey-informed onboarding framework

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

CJChristian Jäger MZMagdalena Zagrodnick BSBenjamin Schwede

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Case study demonstrates successful adoption of an electronic laboratory notebook in academic research teams, highlighting the necessity of user-centered onboarding and institutional support.

Key Points

Evaluate the institutional implementation, onboarding framework, and user acceptance of the open-source electronic laboratory notebook eLabFTW to improve research data management and FAIR compliance.
Conducted a multi-phase implementation involving stakeholder engagement, an interdisciplinary pilot phase, and technical infrastructure integration.
Surveyed institutional researchers (n = 55) regarding documentation practices, system requirements, and adoption barriers.
Developed open-source Shiny applications, onboarding checklists, and Apache Superset analytical dashboards to facilitate platform rollout.
Survey respondents identified major documentation hurdles, including time burden (67%), inefficient organization (63%), and retrieval difficulties (63%), despite high baseline reliance on spreadsheets (87%) and paper (85%).
Crucial adoption requirements included user-friendliness (90%), structured training (71%), and continuous technical support (52%).
Across a 22-month rollout period, platform adoption reached 237 registered users across 32 research teams, generating 4,263 active experiments.

Cite This Study

Jäger et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a895ffeca7ade938187ef96 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355558

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark