Lab Notebook Policy: What to Include (Template for PIs)

A lab notebook policy is a one-page rule set that says what goes in the notebook, how entries are written and corrected, where raw data lives, how often the PI reviews it, who owns it, and what happens to it when a student leaves. Write it before the first experiment, not after the first dispute. A copyable template is below, built on the NIH's published record-keeping guidelines.

The reason to bother is practical. NIH's own guidance gives five reasons for good records: analysis and publication, meeting funder standards, supporting intellectual property claims, defending against false allegations of misconduct, and caring for human subjects. The same guidelines note that not every scientist has been trained in how to keep excellent records, so a new student may never have been shown. A short policy is how you show them once, in writing, so nobody has to guess.

What a lab notebook is, and is not

NIH describes a lab notebook as a research record covering the whole process: the question, the experimental design, the protocols, and the data and its analysis. It has to give enough detail that a scientifically literate person could follow the rationale, methods, analysis and results and repeat the work. It may also be used as evidence, for example to support a patent application or to answer an accusation of misconduct.

Two things follow. A notebook is not a diary, and it is not a record of every conversation in the group. And in most settings it is not simply the student's personal property. Who owns it depends on your institution and funder, so the policy has to say.

The entry standard: what every entry contains

NIH's 2008 guidelines say records should explain who made them, what was done, when (month, date and year, stated clearly), why, which project it belonged to, how it was done, what materials were used, the findings, the interpretation and the next step. NIH's later training deck for PIs breaks a typical experimental entry into a date, a title, a goal, background, methods, observations, data analysis and ideas for what to do next.

For the methods, the detail that makes work repeatable is specific. NIH's deck lists reagent source, product number, lot number and expiry date, how and where they were stored, how solutions were made, cell type, source and passage number, instrument name, location and settings, and timings. For animal work it adds strain, source, age, sex and housing details.

A good test, also from that deck: could an educated researcher repeat the experiment with the information you have written down?

Keep every result, including the bad ones

The NIH deck is explicit that all data goes in the notebook or is linked from it, including outliers, failed or contradictory experiments, and experiments done incorrectly, which should be marked as such. The point is integrity: a notebook that only contains the results that worked cannot defend you when someone asks why a paper did not replicate. Put this in the policy in plain words so a nervous first-year knows a failed experiment is expected, not a problem.

Corrections: fix errors, never remove them

The 2008 NIH guidelines are specific for bound notebooks. Pages are numbered and used in order with no skipped pages, errors are lined through with a single line and never erased or obliterated, and corrections to earlier entries are initialled and dated. A loose sheet is dated and added to the binder in chronological order straight away.

Electronic notebooks work differently. The NIH deck says they permit corrections that are tracked by an audit trail, so the old text stays visible. The principle is the same on paper and on screen: the original must remain readable.

Paper, electronic or both

NIH's guidelines accept bound notebooks, ring binders, electronic files and combinations, and list the trade-offs. Paper is portable and simple but hard to search and easy to lose without a copy. Electronic is searchable, legible and can take data straight from instruments, but needs backups, access control and a plan for when the software or media stops being supported.

For an electronic notebook the guidelines add three requirements worth copying into your own policy: a list of authorised users that includes the supervisor, a way to ensure data cannot be altered after entry, and backups. Whichever format you choose, keep the original electronic data files as well as any modified versions. If you are choosing software, our guide to lab management software for research groups explains where an ELN ends and other tools begin.

A lab notebook policy template

Copy this, replace the bracketed parts and ask your research office to check the ownership and retention lines.

LAB NOTEBOOK POLICY: [Lab name], effective [date]

1. Purpose
   Our notebooks let someone else repeat our work, support publications
   and any patent, and answer questions about how a result was obtained.

2. What goes in
   Every experiment and analysis, including failed, contradictory and
   incorrectly performed ones (marked as such). Link to raw data that
   lives elsewhere rather than copying it.

3. Format
   [Bound notebook / the lab ELN: name and version]. One notebook per
   [person / project]. Table of contents at the front.

4. Each entry has
   Date (day, month, year), title, goal, background, methods (reagent
   source, product and lot numbers, instrument and settings), observations,
   analysis, and the next step. Initials of the person who did the work.

5. Timing
   Entries are written [the same day / within 48 hours].

6. Corrections
   Never delete. Paper: one line through the error, initial and date.
   Electronic: edit through the system so the audit trail keeps the old text.

7. Raw data
   Original files are stored at [location], named [convention], and never
   edited. Analysis uses copies. Backed up [daily / weekly] to [location].

8. Review
   The PI or lab manager spot-checks each person's notebook every [month]
   and records the date of the check in the notebook.

9. Ownership
   [As set by our institution and funder; see policy link]. Notebooks and
   raw data stay with the lab when a member leaves; copies leave only with
   the PI's written permission.

10. Leaving the lab
   Before the last day: all entries complete, files filed in the lab
   location, notebook handed to [PI / lab manager], access removed.

11. Retention
   Kept for [period required by funder and institution].

Signed: ____________  Date: ________

Ownership and leaving the lab

This is the part most labs skip and later regret. At NIH the rule is stark: all notebooks and data are owned by NIH, and NIH's PI deck says copies of a notebook may be removed only with express permission, using a specific form. That is an NIH intramural rule, not a universal one. University labs follow their institution's research-data policy and their funders' terms, which differ.

So do two things. Ask your research office who owns notebooks and raw data and what a departing student may take, and write the answer into section 9 of the policy. Then tell new members on day one, as part of your lab onboarding checklist, so a conversation about what they can take does not first happen on their last day.

What the PI does to make it work

A policy only works if someone looks. NIH's deck lists the PI's responsibilities for an electronic notebook, and they translate well to any format: set up the system so the PI has oversight, review new entries periodically, standardise naming and folder conventions, keep an index of every notebook and legacy paper record the group uses, set rules for linking to or importing primary data, and protect primary data from alteration if it lives outside the notebook.

A monthly spot-check of one notebook per person is enough. You are checking that dates are present, methods are specific, failed experiments are included and the raw data can be found. Do it kindly and early, so the first review is a conversation and not an audit. Pair it with the written expectations in a lab expectations document, and see lab inventory management so reagent lot numbers can be traced back to what is on the shelf.

Notebooks and your data management plan

If a funder requires a data management and sharing plan, your notebook policy is part of how you keep the promise. The raw data location, naming convention, backups and retention in the template above are the same details a plan describes. See our guide to the NIH data management and sharing plan for how a plan uses them, and the new PI checklist for where this fits in setting up a lab.

How LetRelay fits in

LetRelay is not an electronic lab notebook, and it does not replace one. It is where the group coordinates around the notebook: the monthly spot-check goes on the shared calendar and becomes a task with an owner and a due date, the departing-student checklist becomes a task list that is ticked off before the last day, and the weekly updates show who is stuck without opening anyone's notebook. More on the LetRelay for research groups page.

FAQ

What should a lab notebook policy include?

What goes in the notebook, the format, what each entry contains, how soon entries are written, how corrections are made, where raw data is stored and backed up, how often the PI reviews notebooks, who owns them, what happens when someone leaves, and how long records are kept.

How do you correct a mistake in a lab notebook?

Never delete it. On paper, put a single line through the error and initial and date the correction. In an electronic notebook, edit through the system so its audit trail keeps the original text. The original must stay readable either way.

Should failed experiments go in the lab notebook?

Yes. NIH's guidance says all data goes in, including outliers, contradictory results and experiments done incorrectly, which should be marked as such. A notebook with only the successes cannot show how a result was actually reached.

Who owns a lab notebook?

It depends on your institution and funder. At the NIH intramural program the notebooks and data are owned by NIH, and copies leave only with permission. In a university lab, ask your research office, and write the answer into the lab's policy so every member knows before they start.

Is an electronic lab notebook better than a paper one?

Electronic notebooks are searchable, legible, can take data straight from instruments and keep an audit trail, but they need backups, access control and a plan for software changes. Paper is simple and portable but hard to search and easy to lose. Many labs use both; what matters is that the policy says which is the record.

How often should a PI review lab notebooks?

NIH's guidance asks PIs to review entries periodically without fixing a number. A monthly spot-check of one notebook per person is a practical default: quick enough to keep up and frequent enough to catch missing dates, vague methods or hard-to-find raw data early.