Supervisors can make or break wellbeing of early-career researchers, survey finds

Scientific supervisors have a substantial influence on the mental health and wellbeing of early-career researchers, according to a survey of over 2600 early-career researchers from 65 different countries. The researchers behind the work, which is published as a preprint and is not peer reviewed, say this highlights the need for better support and training ‘that recognise mentorship as a core component of research culture’.

A team of researchers based in Germany, Spain, Saudi Arabia and the UK initially sent out over 77,000 online surveys to predoctoral, postdoctoral and former researchers between December 2024 and August 2025. The work was ‘motivated by [the researchers’] own observations of how [early-career researchers’] expectations and needs are frequently overlooked in everyday academic practice’.

Over 2600 researchers responded to the survey. This included respondents from 13 different research fields spanning life, medical and health sciences, engineering and physical sciences. Respondents were from 65 countries, with Spain (18%), Sweden (11%) and the US (8%) being the most common.

Analysis revealed that over three-quarters of those surveyed said that their supervisor had a moderate or severe impact on their mental health. The team found that disrespectful communication, receiving little or no feedback and micromanagement were some of the most common causes of poor wellbeing.

Almost half of respondents who no longer work in research (8% of total) said that negative experiences with their supervisor was one of the main reasons for leaving academia. Of the other highly cited reasons for leaving, half highlighted a lack of stable jobs and financial stability.

However, over 20% of those surveyed reported no negative relationships with their supervisor. Such researchers recognised supportive supervisors as not being ‘boss-like’, having regular meetings, setting clear project goals and respecting personal time.

The team suggests that recognising good supervision in universities and research centres, such as through awards or bonuses, could help incentivise positive mentorship. Introducing evidence of support in funding applications could also reinforce the importance of effective supervision.