Protocols.io

protocols.io is a web‐based platform designed for researchers to create, share, collaborate on, version, and publish research protocols (i.e., methods, workflows, laboratory or computational procedures). 

Key features:

• You can search existing protocols (the home page claims “Search over 20,000 reproducible methods”). 
• You can build, edit and version a protocol—helping with reproducibility and method transparency. 
• Collaborate in workspaces: private or public sharing of methods, branching (“forking”), version history. 
• The platform supports publishing of a protocol with a DOI, enabling citation of the method. 
• There is institutional / premium support for private workspaces, version control, industry compliance (e.g., audit trails) per their site.

Why it’s appealing for researchers

• By providing a dedicated place for methods (instead of just journal “Methods” sections), protocols.io gives structure and discoverability.
• Versioning means you can keep track of when a protocol changed, who edited it, and what the previous version was.
• Forking means others can adapt your protocol and contribute back improvements.
• The ability to publish a protocol with a DOI supports transparency and citation of methods.
• From institutional viewpoints: some university library services highlight it as part of “open research tools”. 

Some issues

While protocols.io offers many advantages, users have flagged a number of issues. Here are some of the concerns (with quotes) and what they imply:

1. Lack of peer review / vetting: Publishing protocols is easy and and automatically gets a DOI, however that doesn’t guarantee that it’s been validated in the same way a journal article is—or has been critically reviewed. So users must still apply critical judgment when re‐using someone else’s protocol.
2. Subscription / cost issues for institutions : The cost can become a barrier for small and mid sized institutions,—this affects access, private workspace availability, and institutional support.
3. Accessibility limitations: The platform publishes an accessibility report which states the core platform meets many WCAG 2.1 A/AA criteria, except for certain payment‐modal flows (via Stripe) where users relying on assistive technologies may experience reduced functionality.
   If you or your lab has strict accessibility needs or uses alternative browsers/assistive technologies, this is worth knowing.
4. Lack of Peer Review / trust in protocols: This reflects a user concern: because protocols are not always peer‐reviewed or validated, they may differ in quality or completeness. That means for serious reproducibility, the user must check details (reagents, steps, context) carefully.

Does your lab/organisation Need Protocols.io?

• If you are writing protocols in your lab (wet lab or computational), protocols.io can be a good platform to standardise, share and version them within your group.
• Ensure that for public sharing or publishing methods, you check: clarity, completeness, reproducibility, don’t assume “just because it has a DOI it’s perfect.”
• For internal use, check your institution’s costs—especially if you need many private workspaces or enterprise features.
• Consider contingency plans: e.g., export your protocols (PDF/JSON) in case platform changes or subscriptions shift. A library guide mentions you can download them. 
• For accessibility / compatibility: check with your users (especially if any have assistive-tech needs) and browser policies.
• In your pitch decks (if you are presenting this platform to your group), highlight both the “versioning & collaboration” strength and the “not peer-reviewed / cost risk” as realistic caveats.