Who are you considering?
Read past lab members’ experiences of research supervision, shared anonymously and checked by a moderator.
Search by a professor’s name or an institution. No best-or-worst lists.
What you’ll see on a supervisor’s page
No overall score and no rankings. Each part of supervision is shown on its own, with how many people answered, so you can judge fit for yourself.
Feedback and support
How feedback on your work is given, and how much help you get when you are stuck.
Communication
How reachable the supervisor is and how clearly plans and decisions are shared.
Reasonable expectations
Whether workload, hours and deadlines felt sustainable to past lab members.
Career support
Help with conferences, networking, applications and the next step after the lab.
Funding reliability
Whether promised funding arrived on time and lasted as long as expected.
Mentoring style
Where the supervisor sits between very hands-on and very hands-off. A matter of fit, not quality.
The three-review rule
Reviews and ratings appear once at least three reviews have been published. Until then, profile details and questions to ask the lab remain available, while review text, counts and averages are held back to help protect reviewers.