Scientific malpractice is not just due to researchers having bad intentions, but also due to a lack of education concerning research integrity practices. Besides the importance of institutionalised trainings on research integrity, research supervisors play an important role in translating what doctoral students learn during research integrity formal sessions. Supervision practices and role modelling influence directly and indirectly supervisees’ attitudes and behaviour toward responsible research. Research supervisors can not be left alone in this effort. Research institutions are responsible for supporting supervisors in being more aware of their RI function, and in supporting responsible supervision practices to have a positive cascading effect on supervisees’ research practices. We interviewed 22 European research supervisors to investigate how they perceive their role as research integrity trainers and their real-life supervision practices. Moreover, we investigated their points of view concerning the role of research institutions in supporting supervision practices. Although there are different commonalities in supervisors’ perception of their research integrity-related role, differences are emphasised depending on the supervisors’ characteristics such as academic domain, seniority, working country and gender. In addition, supervisors’ way of mentoring depend also on supervisees’ learning curve. Overall, all supervisors agreed on institutions playing an important role in support their supervision effort and practices. This study aims to be a starting point for better understanding research integrity supervision practices and the role of institutions in supporting them. Moreover, it puts the basis to further investigate differences in supervision practices depending on supervisors’ characteristics.

科学不端行为不仅是由于研究人员的恶意，还因为缺乏关于科研诚信实践的教育。除了研究诚信制度化培训的重要性外，研究导师在转化博士生在研究诚信正式会议期间所学知识方面也发挥着重要作用。督导实践和榜样作用直接或间接影响被督导者对负责任研究的态度和行为。在这项工作中，研究主管不能孤军奋战。研究机构有责任支持主管更多地了解他们的 RI 功能，并支持负责任的监督实践，以对受监督者的研究实践产生积极的连锁效应。我们采访了 22 位欧洲研究主管，以调查他们如何看待自己作为科研诚信培训师的角色以及他们在现实生活中的监督实践。此外，我们调查了他们关于研究机构在支持监管实践中的作用的观点。尽管导师对其科研诚信相关角色的看法存在不同的共性，但根据导师的学术领域、资历、工作国家和性别等特征，强调了差异。此外，导师的指导方式还取决于被导师的学习曲线。总体而言，所有监管机构都同意机构在支持其监管工作和实践方面发挥重要作用。本研究旨在成为更好地理解科研诚信监管实践以及机构在支持这些实践中的作用的起点。此外，它还为进一步调查因监管者特征而导致的监管实践差异奠定了基础。