Research Logbook Template
One filled example, one blank page, and the rules that separate a real research record from a nice-looking one. Print the blanks and use them from Day 1.
The rules of a good logbook.
The logbook is the single most important physical object in an IRIS project. Judges look at it. Ethics reviewers may request it. Years later, it is the only honest record of what actually happened. Six rules govern one that will hold up.
Not loose sheets, not a Google Doc, not photos on a phone. A physical notebook where gaps become obvious.
Same day as the observation, not reconstructed later. Judges can spot a rebuilt logbook from three feet away.
Ink cannot be quietly erased or altered. Any correction is a single strike-through, initialled and dated.
A logbook without crossings-out is a red flag. Real research is messy. So is the record.
Not just numbers. Every entry ends with what worked, what did not, and what you will change tomorrow.
Not to grade. Just to prove it exists and is being kept. That single habit prevents 90% of logbook disasters.
A worked example.
Below is one page from an illustrative IRIS project on microplastics in the Yamuna. It is what a strong Day-14 entry looks like: dated, specific, showing genuine observations, an honest deviation from the plan, a small sketch, and a reflection.
What I set out to do
Complete filtration and particle count for water samples from Sites 3 and 4 (collected Sat 11 Aug). Compare against Sites 1 and 2 counted last week.
What actually happened
Started with Site 3. Filtered 500 mL through the 20‑µm nylon mesh as before. The filter clogged much faster than Sites 1–2, took about 22 min vs. the 8 min I had timed earlier. Photographed the residue before staining. Under the stereo microscope at 40× I counted 52 63 R.S. 14/08 visible fragments in a 5‑field sweep (5 non-overlapping fields of view).
Site 4 (collected same day, but further downstream from the discharge point): 27 fragments across the same 5‑field sweep. Fewer, but also cleaner filter (filtered in 6 min).
Raw counts
| Site | Distance to Discharge | Filter time (min) | Fragments / 5 fields |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | +80 m | 22 | 63 |
| 4 | +2.4 km | 6 | 27 |
Sketch
Deviation from plan
My Research Plan (Form 1A) said 15 min per filter. Site 3 took 22 min. I did not change the mesh size, so the count is comparable. Flagging so Dr Menon can advise if this needs to be re-approved. Called her, left a message.
What I would change tomorrow
Photograph the filter before starting the count, not after. Twice today I lost track of which fragment I had already counted. Also: bring a second pair of gloves. The powder-free ones are too loose.
Next
Tomorrow (15 Aug): run Site 5. Then start the correlation plot with all five sites once Sat's re-collection is done.
Real time cues: a specific start and end time, a specific date, page numbered. Honest correction: the crossed-out "52" replaced by "63" with initials and date. That is exactly the right form. Deviation logged: the filter time exceeded the approved plan and the student flagged it immediately. That reflex is what earns judge trust. Reflection at the end: two small, practical things to change tomorrow. Not "I need to work harder." Concrete. A sketch: even the placeholder shows that visual notes belong in the record.
A blank page.
Print as many of these as you need. On paper, a bound notebook is still ideal; use these as printable inserts if you must, or as a template for the first few entries while a student learns the shape.
What I set out to do
What actually happened
Raw data
Deviation from plan (if any)
What I would change tomorrow
Next
Set your browser to A4, portrait, default margins. In Chrome or Edge, use "More settings, Options, Background graphics" so the cream fill and crimson corners print correctly. Aim for one page per sheet.
Entries the student should never skip.
Even on days when nothing dramatic happens, five entries should always appear somewhere in the logbook:
- The first entry. The research question, exactly as it stands on Day 1, before it has been polished into its final form.
- The pilot day. What was tried, what broke, and what you changed as a result. If the pilot went too smoothly, the pilot was too small.
- Every deviation from the plan. A three-degree temperature miss, a dropped participant, a substituted reagent, a schedule change. Logged, and logged why.
- Meetings with the mentor. Date, what was discussed, what was decided. Also useful evidence that the student, not the mentor, is driving the project.
- Ethics or safety milestones. When each form was signed, and by whom. Note SRC, IRB, or IBC approval dates the day they arrive.
Look at the logbook every week. Not to grade it. Just to see it exists and is being kept. Students who know their mentor will glance at Wednesday's entry on Thursday are much less likely to reconstruct three weeks of "work" the night before the fair. That reconstruction is easy for a judge to spot and it will sink an otherwise strong project.
Print, bind, begin.
The best logbook is the one that actually sits on the desk. Print the blank page, staple twenty copies together, and hand it to your student on Week 1.