The importance of a positive work culture for wellbeing and productivity has become increasingly evident in recent years, but academic science still has a negative reputation in this area. To address this issue, we launched a dedicated, international workshop called “SAFE Labs” in 2024, focused on understanding the key barriers to Starting Aware, Fair, and Equitable Labs.
Here, we focus on two key barriers that we decided we could immediately address:
- Although many group leaders are passionate about improving lab culture, there isn’t an established resource with actionable advice. Instead, existing training and resources typically provide general advice.
- Policies implemented by group leaders are not documented (neither publicly nor within the lab), making it difficult for lab members to influence their environment or hold the group leader accountable. This may also create expectation mismatch between prospective group members and the group leader.
In response to this need, the 13 attendees of SAFE Labs co-authored this handbook. It presents core commitments that span different topics: Policies, Teams, and Careers. No commitment relies on institutional support to implement, and all commitments are actionable, and can be verifiably implemented. This is because:
- Implementable commitments are the most helpful to group leaders and lab members.
- Verifiable commitments allow for accountability and specific feedback.
For example, “I commit to supporting a healthy work-life balance for my lab members” will not be in this handbook because the commitment cannot be verified.
Besides inspiring new group leaders, a key goal of the handbook is to increase transparency and minimise any expectation mismatch between the group leader and lab members, fostering a positive and equitable lab culture. We recognise that there are many viable strategies to run a research group, and that challenges and constraints vary across groups, institutions, and countries. Therefore, the core commitments can be adopted as presented, or tailored to each lab research strategy, institution and country. We encourage suggestions for new policies and invite discussion for new ideas.
Why should group leaders implement the handbook? (At least) 3 reasons:
- They care about improve lab culture
- It advertises that care to lab members and funders
- It reduces inter-personal friction and conflict
This handbook does not represent an optimal or exhaustive template: it is the product of thirteen group leaders who are all passionate about improving lab culture, and are all fallible. Although this handbook will not solve every problem, we hope it takes a significant step toward addressing key challenges faced in daily lab life. The handbook will improve through community feedback and further dedicated workshops.
HELP US! Please fill out our survey to improve and evaluate the handbook!
We hope many labs will engage with the SAFE Labs Handbook: those who implement—or intend to implement within 3 months—all commitments, should feature the SAFE Labs logo on their website and should register for the SAFE Labs mailing list.
In the longer term, we imagine the SAFE Labs Handbook as a versatile tool in academia. For example, institutions can use their “proportion of SAFE Labs” to monitor, and improve, their research culture (e.g. as a KPI). Funders could recognise (or even require) SAFE Labs compliance as an desired indicator of aware, fair, and equitable labs. We also envision an institutional handbook: actionable commitments for institutions to improve lab culture.
Details: Here we include more details on the commitment, including the reasoning behind it, and any requirements (e.g. if a statement must include a particular piece of information).
Suggestions: We may include suggestions of aspects that should be considered when fulfilling the commitment. These may contain multiple alternatives and are not requirements.
Example: We may include an example (e.g. for a documented statement). These can be copied, used as guides, or completely changed. Their relevance may vary due to country/institutional differences.
Publicly Document: A written record on the lab website that is visible to anyone. This allows applicants to make informed decisions, and minimizes expectation mismatch. Publicly documenting traditionally obscured information can be uncomfortable—it was for us. For each commitment, we asked ourselves: Would this information be useful if I were applying to a lab? Is there a strong reason to withhold this information? We hope you agree with our classifications, but if not, tell us why!
Document: A written record that is visible to lab members, but not necessarily to anyone visiting the lab website. For example, on a “Lab Wiki”, “Slack Canvas”, or another shared document. This information can also be publicly documented, but this is not required.
Establish: This requires implementing a new (if not already established) policy/process/event. Not as immediately achievable as documenting something, but does not require institutional support.
I commit to publicly document ...
... a diversity statement.
Details: Science is an international endeavour, which brings together people from many cultures. This statement is an opportunity to specify the steps you, and your institution, have taken to support a diversity of researchers with differing needs and backgrounds.
Suggestions:
-Make clear what are the institutional rules for maternity and paternity leave.
-Normalize specifying pronouns in email signatures and profiles (e.g. slack).
-Encourage people to share and mark on the lab calendar crucial cultural events/festivities.
-Encourage attendance of EDI training.
-Discuss steps taken to facilitate diversity in applicants.
-During onboarding, discuss cultural needs (e.g. religious holidays, prayer facilities).
-Dedicate some meetings (e.g. journal club) to papers addressing diversity in science.
-Consider diversity of voices when selecting papers in journal clubs.
Example:
We believe that diversity is a resource to harness, and we strive to create a psychologically safe environment where disruptive points of view are valued. Thus, to foster a diverse and inclusive environment, we hire according to institutional affirmative action policies; we review the institutional rules for maternity and paternity leave when negotiating a contract; we discuss any cultural needs at onboarding, and we encourage lab members to share and mark on the lab calendar crucial cultural events and festivities; finally, we promote diversity in science by selecting journal club papers from a diversity of voices. We hope that these policies will encourage individuals from different cultural, socioeconomic, gender, and geographical backgrounds to join.
... the lab code of conduct: emphasise welfare, equity and integrity.
Details: A prominent code of conduct should help to establish the lab atmosphere, foster synergy and collaboration, and make lab members feel valued and respected. It will set boundaries and shared practices, and establish a common framework to reduce and resolve conflict.
Suggestions:
-Set out expectations for professional behaviour.
-Include timekeeping for meetings, work requests, and assignments.
-Require engagement with presentations, opinions, and requests from other members.
-Avoid exclusive communication channels (e.g. cc everyone when applicable).
Example:
All lab members are expected to maintain a professional attitude of integrity, accountability, and mutual respect in all interactions and endeavours while upholding high standards of scientific rigor and collaboration. Examples include respecting each other’s points of views and contributions to discussions, being timely for meetings, and actively engaging in each other’s presentations. Everyone commits to maintaining an inclusive environment marked by compassionate behaviour and free from offensive conduct, particularly regarding gender, race, sexuality, or disability. Lab members are free to voice their ideas, wishes, or concerns without risking negative consequences ensuring a psychologically safe environment.
... green initiatives in the lab and any explicit rules related to sustainability.
Details: Laboratories consume a lot of energy and produce a lot of waste. Group leaders are able to promote measures that reduce the environmental impact of scientific research, and prospective lab members may use environmental awareness as a factor when choosing labs.
Suggestions:
-Require sustainable transport options when travel time is less than 8 hours.
-Recycle non-hazardous waste.
-Place orders in bulk to reduce shipments.
-Have a list of instruments you are happy to share with your internal collaborators.
-Donate unused equipment within/outside the institutions.
-Highlight schemes that incentivise sustainable commuting (e.g. cycle schemes).
Example:
The lab strives to minimise energy consumption and waste production. We identified three main areas of impact: travel, recycling and economical use of equipment.
Travel: I encourage sustainable transport options both for long-haul travel and for daily commute. For long-hauls trips, when funding allows, I will cover the most sustainable travel option (up to double the price of the cheapest alternative). I also recognise remote-working hours spent productively on sustainable means of transport during private (non-work related) trips. I incentivize sustainable options for daily commute: PhD students enrolled at University of Trento benefit from free public transportation across the Trentino region; all the lab members can participate in an annual contest where commuting milage is logged and scored according to sustainability of the means of transport, the person who accrues the most points wins.
Recycling: To minimize the environmental impact of lab waste, we avoid mixing truly contaminated materials (which is expensive and environmentally harmful to safely dispose of) with clean recyclable waste. We equip our lab with additional recycling bins and take responsibility for disposing of the recovered recyclables according to local
regulations.
Economical use of equipment: when possible and not detrimental our instruments, we turn off unused equipment when prolonged downtime is forecasted.
... the common lab language and any institutional language requirements.
Details: English is the international language of science in the 21st century: proficiency in English is a crucial skill to nurture for every scientist. However, lab members are often not native English speakers, and in some cases the Institutional language may not be English. It is therefore important to document the lab and institutional language policy (even in “obvious” cases). To help non-native English speakers—or non-native speakers of the local language—it is also valuable to highlight any institutional support for language acquisition.
Suggestions:
-Identify English as the lab language, and document language code of conduct.
-Lead by example and adopt the most inclusive communication format.
-Clearly indicate language requirements in job posts.
-Document available training in English, particularly scientific writing and presentation.
-Document available training in the Institutional and/or local language.
-Document lab policy about using LLMs (i.e. ChatGPT) to improve written output.
-Address language barriers in meetings, adopting formats of Q/A that facilitate feedback.
Example:
The lab language is English. Any professional conversation, oral and written, during work activities must be in English: these include presentations and discussion at lab meetings, scientific output, and email exchanges. Feel free to use LLMs to proofread and refine written text. However, fully AI generated text is not acceptable. Outside of professional meetings, the lab strives for inclusive communication: verbal exchanges should adopt the common language that allow everyone present to participate.
The institutional language at the Italian Institute of Technology is English; nonetheless, many administrative exchanges and Italian bureaucracy are still in Italian. Proficiency in Italian is therefore useful within the institute, as well as when traveling throughout the country. Please refer to the lab Wiki to access learning resources.
... my support for, and implementation of, the Lab Culture Handbook.
Details: This consists of three required steps:
1. Feature the SAFE Labs logo on your website.
2. Join the SAFE Labs mailing list.
3. Link to the Lab Culture Handbook for accountability and feedback from lab members.
I commit to document ...
... the procedure for reporting bullying and/or harassment.
Details: Bullying and harassment are serious allegations and entirely unacceptable in any work environment. By explicitly highlighting the procedure for reporting these issues, group leaders not only demonstrate their commitment to eradicating these behaviours, but also increase the chance that violations witnessed by lab members will be reported.
Suggestions:
-Specify how bullying and harassment is defined by the institution.
-Document institutional procedures for reporting and any supporting body/resources available.
-Disseminate and value training events offered by the institution.
Example:
Students and trainees who feel they have experienced or witnessed bullying harassment or sexual misconduct by another student may make a formal report to XXXX by email. This process may also be initiated through Human resources, the lab manager, or group leader.
Members of staff who feel they have experienced or witnessed bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct may make a formal complaint against a staff member by using the Staff Grievance Policy or they may make a formal complaint against a student by contacting XXXX by email.
Students or members of staff who feel they have experienced or witnessed bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct by a third party, or a member of the public, should discuss this with their line manager, supervisor or personal tutor in the first instance. This may involve notifying third parties and using their complaints procedure or notifying Security and/or the police when involving members of the public.
Outcome of a complaint/ disciplinary case
The Reporting Party will be told whether their complaint has been upheld or not; and whether the Reported Party has been dismissed or expelled. If the complaint is not upheld or the Reported Party is not dismissed or expelled, information will be shared with the Reporting Party to minimise any adverse effects in accessing their work or study environment, where possible, but there may be limits to the information about the consequences to the Reported Party that can be shared with the Reporting Party.
Where the Reporting Party is told the outcome they will be asked to respect confidentiality with regards to the outcome. Links to institute guidelines and contact information of the person in charge for each group are provided as hyperlinks above.
... available resources to support mental health.
Details: Thankfully, awareness and support for mental health issues within work environments is at an all-time high. It is likely that these issues will arise within any research group at some time, and it is equally likely that the group leader is not qualified to offer advice or guidance—particularly given the potential for a conflict-of-interest. It is therefore critical that lab members are made aware of the resources available to them at both an institutional and national level.
Suggestions:
-Should lab members approach you with work-related and/or non-work-related issues?
-Educate lab members on mental health, and how to prevent and recognise arising issues.
-Document institutional resources for psychological support.
-Highlight the institutional policy on mental health and sick leave.
-Promote good practices to safe-guard mental health (e.g. work-life balance).
Example:
Mental well-being is crucial for personal and professional success, especially given the prevalence of mental health challenges in academia (https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4089). High productivity doesn’t equate to overwork. Lab members are encouraged to manage their productivity responsibly and are not expected to exceed working regular work hours. If you feel comfortable, I encourage you to discuss any personal challenges that may affect your work during our 1-on-1 meetings. If you need additional support, I encourage you to consider the following resources:
Counseling Services: Our institution offers free counseling services [Insert Link] and free 1-on-1 coaching [Insert Link] for all students and employees. Please also consult the institute’s resources on a healthy work-life balance [Insert Link].
Medical Services: Our institution's medical services can guide you to professional mental health resources. Please refer to [link, phone number] for details. Additionally, please consult the institute’s policy on sick leave [Insert Link].
Crisis Hotlines: If you or someone you know is in immediate need of support, please contact the National Crisis Hotlines at [phone number(s)].
... the procedure for raising lab or inter-personal issues.
Details: One prominent reason that lab and inter-personal issues are not raised in a timely and constructive fashion is the lack of a documented procedure for this process. Having a clear and transparent procedure encourages feedback from lab members, makes them more comfortable initiating feedback as the expectation is clear, and increases the likelihood that issues can be addressed before they deteriorate.
Suggestions:
-Specify that issues raised in 1-on-1 meetings won’t be acted on without discussion.
-Specify a reporting procedure that circumvents you if necessary.
-Provide an avenue for lab members to raise concerns with you anonymously.
Example:
1. If comfortable doing so, request a meeting to raise the issue with the group leader.
2. If not, please raise the issue anonymously by using this form.
3. If external involvement would be beneficial, contact our dedicated external advisor.
4. If none of the above steps fare appropriate, raise the issue with HR here.
I commit to establish …
... a shared lab calendar for members to indicate if they are away, at conferences etc.
Details: This not only makes it clear when regular meetings should be cancelled, or when a lab member should not be expected to respond to emails, but also normalizes the lab policy (whatever that may be) regarding conferences, remote working, vacation etc.
Suggestions:
-Clear instructions for reporting different statuses (e.g. vacation vs conference attendance).
-What specific details should be reported? (e.g. half-day vs full day).
I commit to publicly document ...
... a list of lab members and alumni.
Details: A clear and current list of lab members allows prospective applicants to gauge the size and composition of the lab. Unless otherwise requested, contact details for each person should be included. Adding alumni indicates the range of roles that lab members move into after leaving, and provides an avenue to gain more information about joining, working in, and leaving the lab.
... my expectations for working hours, remote working, and vacation.
Details: Lab rules for working hours should be clear to avoid any conflict or misunderstanding inside the lab. Having clear expectations for working hours can also increase equity between lab members. Moreover, group leaders need to ensure that lab members feel safe to correctly balance their work in the lab with their life. The lab policy regarding work hours, remote working, and vacation should be explicitly included.
Suggestions:
-Should notice of holidays be given and how?
-Are there core-working hours (typically less than the full working hours)?
-Should lab members schedule messages if sent outside of working hours?
-What times are appropriate times for scheduling meetings?
Example:
I am committed to creating a healthy work environment for all lab members that prioritises mental health and wellbeing. Academic neuroscience should be an exciting, rewarding, and engaging job. Certainly, it can be challenging, and stressful at times, but it should not be depressing, or life-consuming. I anticipate all lab members taking a minimum of XXX’s prescribed 41 days of annual leave. “Minimum” because if experiments necessitate working on a weekend, or you attend a conference that’s scheduled on a weekend, I support lab members taking time off to compensate for this. I hope to schedule all meetings within UCL’s “core” work hours of 10am to 4pm. And I will refrain from sending, or answering, non-urgent emails/messages outside of work hours.
All full-time lab members should aim to work onsite at least four days a week. I expect this number to reduce (probably to “three”) once the lab is operational and more time is being spent analysing data rather than building rigs/training mice. In general, I believe that some regular onsite presence is important to maintain the lab community. However, I am happy to support intermittent periods of fully-remote working when, for example, traveling/visiting family abroad or writing up a thesis/grant.
... an overview of the regular meetings in the lab, and my expectations for participation.
Details: Labs often have a variety of regular meetings, including 1-on-1 meetings, lab meetings and journal clubs. However, the expectations for the contents of these meetings are rarely documented, leading to misunderstandings and uncertainty. Clear documentation not only reveals useful information about lab life, but also ensures that meetings are more effective and fruitful. As a minimum, this should include the frequency, duration, and the agenda for each type of meeting.
Suggestions:
-Discuss 1-on-1 meeting frequency at onboarding, and review in annual appraisals.
-Create a shared space where past presentations can be accessed.
-Encourage participation and involvement from all lab members, for example:
1. Round table feedback
2. Lab members write down their thoughts, then all of them are read.
3. Allocate time in meetings for problem solving and a brainstorming session.
4. Have a meeting facilitator and/or note taker; rotate among lab members.
-Conduct regular team-building activities (e.g. lab retreat, dinners, celebrations).
Example:
Discussing scientific progress is essential for the success of our projects. I expect all lab members to actively participate in our scheduled meetings:
Lab Meetings: Each lab member will host our weekly lab meeting on a rotating schedule, presenting an informal progress report. These reports, lasting 20-30 minutes, should succinctly introduce your project, highlight the main research questions, and focus on recent achievements and challenges. This allows for productive group discussions to advance your project. Lab meetings are typically held once per week within core working hours, lasting 60 to 90 minutes. Progress report presentations are accessible via our lab’s shared resources.
Journal Club: On a rotating schedule, each lab member will present the core hypotheses, methods, results, and conclusions of a recent original research paper relevant to our lab’s research in our monthly journal club. All members are expected to read the paper and actively participate in discussing its strengths, weaknesses, and key takeaways. The journal club is typically held once per week within core working hours and lasts about 60 minutes.
1-on-1 Meetings: I schedule bi-weekly 1-on-1 in-person meetings which each lab member, typically lasting around 1 hour, during core work hours [details below]. These meetings are designed to support you in successfully implementing your research project. I am also available for additional meetings upon request.
Yearly Appraisals: I will review your project's long-term progress and provide tailored feedback on your work performance during yearly appraisals. This is also an opportunity for you to give me feedback on your experience working in the lab, and under my supervision.
... the responsibilities of each lab role and the training provided.
Details: Each group leader has their own expectations for lab roles (PhD students, postdoctoral researchers, lab technicians etc.). By explicitly stating the responsibilities associated to different positions, group leaders can pre-empt expectation mismatch for prospective lab members before and after they join the lab.
Suggestions:
-What is the training/experience/independence expected for each role?
-Does the role involve a research project?
-Does the role involve applying for funding?
-Does the role involve supervising other lab members?
-Will the role be supervised by another lab member?
-Does the role involve house-keeping tasks?
-What level of supervision/training will be offered?
Example:
Our team is composed by researchers with different roles: post-doctoral researchers, PhD students, undergraduate (Master or Bachelor) students and research assistants/engineers. These roles, which may correspond to different career stages and seniority, typically come with different duties and responsibilities. Typical responsibilities are summarised by the table below. Exceptions may be made in discussion with me—typically during onboarding.
Postdoc | PhD | Undergrad | Assistant/Engineer | |
---|---|---|---|---|
-------------- | ------------ | ----------- | -------------------- | |
Supervised by | PI | PI & Postdoc | -PI/Postdoc | PI |
Supervising | PhD, Undergrad | Undergrad | N | N |
-------------- | ------------ | ----------- | -------------------- | |
Independent Project | Y | Y | N | N |
Experimental work | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Analysis | Y | Y | Y | N |
Paper Writing | Y | Y | N | N |
Conference presentation | Y | Y | N | N |
-------------- | ------------ | ----------- | -------------------- | |
Applications | Y | N | N | N |
Help PI grants | Y | Y | N | N |
-------------- | ------------ | ----------- | -------------------- | |
Data Club | Y | Y | Y | N |
Journal Club | Y | Y | Y | N |
Paper review | Y | Y | N | N |
-------------- | ------------ | ----------- | -------------------- | |
Orders | Y | Y | N | Y |
Animal colony | Y | Y | N | Y |
I commit to document ...
... the onboarding procedure for new lab members.
Details: A clear onboarding process should not only ensure that lab members complete essential administrative processes, but also that each lab member starts with the same level of pastoral support and lab-integration. This process must include the sharing and discussion of this Lab Culture Handbook.
Suggestions:
-Send general email to introduce new lab members.
-Signing a contract/being added to payroll.
-Getting an ID & institutional email address.
-Fire/safety inductions.
-Lab access.
-Joining lab calendar/wiki/slack etc.
-Assigning a workstation.
-Schedule 1-on-1 meetings with the group leader, and discuss their frequency.
-Mandatory institutional courses.
-Pairing with a “lab buddy” to act as a point of contact etc.
Example:
Arriving in a new lab, town, and often country can be a challenging process. The lab has developed an onboarding procedure to help make this process go as smoothly as possible. There are institutional administrative activities that must be performed, and these are listed on the Wiki, along with details about how to complete them [Insert Link]. In addition, every new lab member is paired with a “lab buddy” (an existing member of the lab) who will arrange for you to meet each lab member individually and hear about the work they are doing.
Unless I am traveling, we will have our first 1-on-1 meeting during your first day in the lab. This will include a discussion of your project in the lab, but also guidance on how you can access all the information and lab policies specified in the SAFE Labs Lab Culture Handbook.
... how equal access to lab resources across lab members is maintained.
Details: Most lab members will quickly recognise any disparities of time and resource investment in different projects or people. These may arise for valid strategic reasons: funding priorities, timeliness of publication, contractual needs. Having clear and transparent policies for access to lab resources avoids biases from the group leader, inter-personal conflict, and fosters cooperativity between projects.
Suggestions:
-Implement a shared lab calendar and booking system for communal instruments.
-Monitor and enforce respectful and fair booking schedules.
-Discuss project investment at onboarding.
-Keep a record of expenditure for different projects.
-Implement a task request system for shared lab technicians (e.g. apps in Teams).
-Prioritise publications based on agreed plan rather than impact.
-Document the feedback process to report any perceived inequalities.
Example:
I strive to ensure that all lab members in the same role have access to the resources they need to complete their project and advance their career. These include the financial resources to purchase equipment and attend conferences, sufficient access to shared resources (e.g. microscopes and behavioural rigs), and time/help from lab technicians and engineers. Anticipated resource requirements will be discussed at onboarding, and I keep a record of expenditure on different projects to ensure there are no major discrepancies. We have established systems for booking shared equipment and technician hours [Insert Link] which act as a historical record to ensure that these resources are not unfairly distributed. If you perceive any inequalities in the distribution of lab resources, please raise your concerns with me according to the procedure for raising lab or inter-personal issues [Insert Link].
The above policies pertain to communal lab resources. Individuals with their own grants which, for example, allow them to hire a technician or travel to conferences will have exclusive (in the case of travel funding) or priority (in the case of staff or shared equipment) access to these resources.
I commit to establish ...
... annual lab-wide feedback sessions.
Details: Implementing guidelines for giving and receiving is good practice to enhance communication and foster a positive work environment.
Suggestions:
-In a large lab, could be an anonymous survey.
-In a small lab, could involve explicitly soliciting non-anonymous feedback.
-New group leaders could combine lab retreats/lab meetings to improve feedback.
-Communicate feedback decisions and if suggestions are not implemented, explain why.
-Follow up on feedback implementation.
... annual bilateral feedback and appraisal sessions for each lab member.
Details: Having (at least) an annual 1-on-1 meeting with each lab member dedicated to exchanging bilateral feedback and giving advice on career development. This is required by some, but not all, institutions.
Suggestions:
-Discuss career development and courses for both scientific and non-scientific skills.
-Review the frequency of 1-on-1 meetings for the upcoming year.
-Discuss grant-writing opportunities and plan application strategy.
-Consider quarterly meetings to discuss career goals.
-Solicit feedback on improving your mentorship and the lab support.
-Evaluate project progression based on milestones, rather than just specific results.
-Celebrate all publications equally regardless of journal.
-Acknowledge the element of luck in all scientific endeavours.
-Avoid the phrase ‘negative results’: all results are discoveries; hypotheses can be falsified.
... annual lab-wide meetings to normalise failures.
Details: Research can be frustrating, with failures and falsified hypotheses outnumbering successes. Most failures are “good” failures: those where you discover something about the system you are working on, and improve future work through the experience. These failures are the stepping stones to discovery, and should be celebrated. Implementing an annual meeting where all lab members, including the group leader, recount their most successful failure will help normalise these events as learning and growth opportunities.
Suggestions:
-Each lab member could discuss a failed experiment, application, or endeavour.
-Institute a prize for best failure, elected by general vote.
- Celebrate experiments and efforts even when no new finding is produced.
... a mechanism to record key outcomes from each 1-on-1 meeting.
Details: Commonly reported frustrations of the 1-on-1 meeting process in labs are:
1. Lab members feel that their group leader forgets the content of their previous meeting and so appears disengaged, or time is wasted rehashing the previous meeting.
2. Group leaders feel that a previously agreed course of action has not been followed (or even attempted) and the lab member has instead pursued an unrelated tangent.
Recording the key outcomes of each 1-on-1 meeting immediately after it takes place has been reported to robustly improve these issues. It allows any miscommunication to be readily identified, and provides a way for all participants to refresh their memory before the next meeting—saving time and confusion. This does not mean lab members should never diverge from the proposed plan, but if they do, they should be ready to justify that decision in future meetings.
Suggestions:
-Require lab members to summarize each meeting in a shared document.
-Include agreed-upon action points to prioritize before the next meeting.
-Lab members should take notes during the meeting.
-Group leader should read the document after/before meetings (to catch misunderstandings).
-Other solutions include allowing the lab member to record meetings (e.g. via zoom).
... a “PhD steering committee” to annually monitor progress and mediate feedback.
Details: NOTE: Some institutions already implement this process (e.g. "PhD Committee"), others have committees that meet irregularly, and some only form a committee for the final viva. However, all SAFE Labs are required to implement this process—the steering committee does not need to have any official role in awarding the PhD. It is important that PhD students receive support and feedback from beyond their direct supervisor. An annual presentation to a steering committee provides an impartial perspective on their project (e.g. timeline adjustments, training required). This meeting can identify potential conflicts and issues in the working environment of the PhD student. It also provides an opportunity for the supervisor to raise issues with the committee and request an external opinion.
Suggestions:
-Have the initial meeting within 6 months of starting the PhD.
-Encourage PhD students to contact the committee members as needed.
-3 members: external expert, within-institute group leader, and a senior PhD student/postdoc.
-Each meeting consists in 3 phases:
1. Discussion with supervisor in absence of student.
2. Project presentation by the PhD student.
3. Discussion with student in absence of supervisor.
I commit to publicly document ...
... which contributions constitute authorship on a scientific paper.
Details: The line between “acknowledgement” and “authorship” is not always clear. An authorship statement will never solve this problem, but it should act as a starting point for discussions when lab members are prospectively, or retrospectively, considering their role in a project. It should be publicly documented so that prospective lab members are aware of the authorship policy before applying to join a lab.
Suggestions:
-Acknowledge that authorship can be difficult to define.
-At what stage will authorship be discussed?
-How will contributions be included in a paper?
Example:
Authorship vs acknowledgement is not always clear for a publication, but typically all contributors to a paper are included as authors, where contribution is broadly defined by CRediT Taxonomy. For example, developing a new technique for a project, or contributing previously unpublished data/figures would constitute authorship. Conversely, routine experimental work, sharing basic analysis code, or proof-reading a paper would not constitute authorship. Authorship is ultimately decided in discussions between the group leader, project lead(s), and any other potential authors. Although the scientific process is unpredictable, authorship will be discussed when a lab member begins, or becomes involved with, a project. Whenever possible, we publish a matrix of contributions at the end of each paper.
... my ambitions for the duration and publication outputs for each lab role.
Details: Science is impossible to predict, and no one can guarantee the outcome of a given PhD or postdoctoral research position. However, group leaders vary in their expectations for what a typical PhD/postdoctoral research project should involve. Making the ambitions (despite the variability inherent to science) for each role clear should reduce expectation mismatch between new lab members and group leaders.
Suggestions:
-Include any institutional/country-based requirements for PhDs (e.g. max length, publications).
-Provide statistics on how long lab members typically stay in the lab.
-Document and discuss ambitions for application to fellowships and additional funding.
Example:
Every PhD and postdoctoral researcher position in the lab inevitably has its own set of experimental challenges and funding complications. Therefore, it is impossible to predict the outcome of any project, and I cannot make guarantees with respect to timelines or publications. However, my ambition for each role is as follows:
PhD students in the UK typically graduate ~4 years after joining the lab, and it is my aim that each student has at least one first (or co-first) authored publication on bioRxiv at that time. I select PhD projects (in discussion with the student) with this aim in mind. Depending on the current funding status of the lab, it is often possible for students to remain in the lab for a period after their PhD, and this will be discussed at least one year in advance of graduation.
Postdoctoral researchers typically join the lab with an initial contract, and the length of that contract depends on both the source of funding and their proposed project. All positions in the university are also subject a 12-month probationary period. I will be transparent about these restrictions in the initial job advertisement, and in discussions with any applicant. I aim to propose projects (in discussion with the researcher) to maximise the chance of a publication within the initial contract’s timeframe. At least one year before the end of the contract period, I will discuss the next steps with the researcher, which may include the option to stay longer in the lab (with or without applying for their own funding).
... expectations and funding for conference/summer school attendance.
Details: Conferences, workshops, and other training opportunities (e.g. summer schools) are valuable resources for dissemination, acquiring new expertise, networking, and career development. Therefore, prospective lab members need to understand the lab policy with respect to attending these opportunities so they can make informed decisions and avoid subsequent expectation mismatch. At a minimum, state the typical lab resources available for attending these opportunities, both with respect to financial support and time, and all lab members in the same role should have equal access to these lab resources.
Suggestions:
-Are the limitations on which conferences etc. lab members can attend?
-Are there any limitations on how lab members can use their own funds if available?
-Are there requirements to attend, and is there financial support?
-Do expectations change with roles (e.g. can lab technicians attend conferences)?
-How is it decided when a project is ready to present at conference?
-Keep a transparent record of attendance.
-Mark major conferences and related deadlines in the lab calendar.
-Discuss opportunities in the upcoming year at annual appraisals.
Example:
I encourage all lab members to seek and apply for training opportunities to develop new expertise, and the lab values initiative to disseminate the lab research at conferences.
Each postdoctoral researcher and PhD student has a budget of £1000 per year to attend conferences. This can be accumulated across years if that is the preference, and can be used for one expensive conference or multiple inexpensive conferences. Lab members do not need to present anything when attending their first conference after joining the lab, but should present at any future conferences, or organize a workshop/symposium, if they are planning to attend. If lab members have additional funds through grants or their PhD programme, these can be used in addition to the £1000 annual budget. I am happy to make an exception to this rule and provide extra funds if allowed by current grants, and an excellent opportunity arises (e.g. a unique conference, an invitation to give a prestigious talk) that would exceed this budget, but lab members should discuss with me before making any commitments.
Typically, I expect both PhD students and postdoctoral researchers to attend a competitive training school and/or a conference by the end of their second year in the lab. The lab will support applications (e.g. with recommendation letters) to these initiatives when they align with a project interest or planned career development. When funds are available, and application to fees waivers are not successful, the lab will cover the costs.
Master’s students, undergraduates, and lab technicians are also encouraged to attend conferences if they have work to present. They should discuss these opportunities in advance with me. Often, there are grants available from conference organisers to support attendance, and if this is not the case, or the application for funds is unsuccessful, I will consider funding attendance on a case-by-case basis.
... guidelines for completing previous work after joining the lab.
Details: We are all familiar with the experience of joining a new lab whilst still having outstanding academic work from a previous position. It is important to discuss this process with all new lab members to ensure that they progress to new projects in a timeframe that works for everyone. Discussing this policy is a required component of the onboarding process for postdoctoral researchers.
Suggestions:
-Arrange for lab members to start later if they have significant work ongoing.
-Acknowledge that it is difficult to predict this timeline.
-What proportion of time is reasonable to allocate to past work?
-A similar approach can be applied to independent or personal projects or commitments.
Example:
I understand that postdoctoral researchers joining the lab may have ongoing work from their previous position and I support them taking time to complete this work. The period during which they will need to continue previous work is understandably hard to predict, but ideally it will not last longer than 1 year. If finishing previous work is expected to last longer than 1 year, postdoctoral researchers should delay the start of their position in the lab whenever possible. Time spent on previous work should not exceed ~25%.
... the process for funding postdoctoral researchers.
Details: Establishing clear policies on salary and grant applications, is crucial for maintaining transparency and ensuring that postdocs join, or apply to, the lab with accurate expectations. It also fosters a supportive and equitable work environment. If researchers do not all start on the same salary, specify why this may be the case.
Suggestions:
-Include the starting salary for postdoctoral researchers.
-Encourage postdocs to apply for their own grants (specify if required).
Example:
At XXX, salaries for postdoctoral researchers are determined by a national grading system [Insert Link]. All postdoctoral researchers in the lab start on grade XXXX, unless they have significant prior postdoctoral experience (e.g. have already completed a post doc in a lab other than their PhD lab). At the end of each year, salaries increase by one point on this grading system.
All postdoctoral researchers are required to apply for followships, both to benefit their own career and to improve lab finances. However, being awarded a fellowship is not a requirement. In cases when a researcher acquires their own funding through a competitive fellowship [Insert Link], this often comes with an increased salary. It may also come with dedicated funding for a lab technician to be managed by the researcher.
It is possible for postdoctoral fellows to be promoted to a senior-researcher level through an established institutional process. This is often most successful after acquiring their own grant or publishing a paper. I encourage all researchers to apply for promotion and will review the possibility during annual appraisals.
I will be transparent with postdoctoral researchers about the available funding for their position when they join the lab, and will discuss any.
... the visa-support available to overseas applicants.
Details: Visa costs are a significant factor when applying for any job. Documenting the approximate cost, timeline, and financial support allows prospective lab members to make informed decisions, and potentially saves time for both parties. Financial support for visa costs can vary between positions, but this should be indicated prominently in any job description.
Suggestions:
-Acknowledge that costs will likely be unique to everyone.
Example:
Visa costs when joining the lab from outside the UK vary by the applicant’s citizenship, but are typically £5,000, comprising application costs, required language tests, and annual NHS contributions. The process typically takes 3-6 months, although this can vary significantly. At the time of writing, we typically cover all costs related to the visa process. However, this can be position-dependent: please refer to the job advertisement for more specific details.
I commit to document ...
... the procedure for requesting reference letters.
Details: Career progression, grants, and competitive applications often require reference letters from mentors and supervisors. However, it is not uncommon to reuse the same letter with minimal changes, or even ask lab members to draft their own letters. These practices undermine the purpose of the reference system. SAFE Labs group leaders are required to personally write and sign all recommendation letters they agree to provide—possibly in collaboration with a co-supervisor (but never the subject of the letter).
Suggestions:
-Specify a generous notification period for requests.
-Be transparent about your references if performance was not satisfactory.
-Collaborate and include lab members as signatories for their supervisees.
Example:
Reference letters will be provided to lab members at request, but these requests should be made at least 2 weeks in advance of the deadline for the first reference letter, and at least 1 week in advance for subsequent letters. Lab members should expect fair but honest evaluation of their performance and skills in the reference letters provided. As a rule, any additional supervisors (for example, a postdoctoral researcher who has supervised a student) of the lab member will be invited to contribute and sign the requested reference letter.
... the procedure for leaving the lab, including an exit interview.
Details: Staff and students can choose to leave a lab for a variety reasons. If the expectations for the person leaving are clearly stated in advance (e.g. typical timeline, procedure, and support provided), it will help to make the process as smooth and amicable as possible. Exit interviews are a requisite part of this process in SAFE Labs. They are invaluable for identifying aspects of the lab that work well, and which could be improved. However, exit interviews are often not implemented in academia.
Suggestions:
-Encourage lab members to come to you freely if they are thinking of leaving.
-Can lab members write grants for independence during regular work hours?
-Will you read grant applications, and how much notice will you need?
-How much notice should be given by lab members before leaving?
-What are the handover steps? (e.g. knowledge transfer, labelling reagents, data storage).
-The exit interview could be conducted by someone external to the lab to improve feedback.
-Exit interviews should have standard questions and identify the reason for leaving the lab.
Example:
I aim to provide lab members with mentorship and support to secure the next career step in their career. Job and/or grant applications, and preparing for subsequent interviews, takes time. Typically, after discussions during 1-on-1 meetings, I support dedicating up to 25% of research time to this endeavour.
I am best equipped to help with academic career trajectories: I offer mentorship at 1-on-1 meetings and will devote time to rehearse interview talks. However, academia is one of many available career paths. For career paths outside academia, the institute, and external organisations (e.g. Nature Jobs fair), offer events and workshops. I support lab members making use of these resources.
I understand that people decide to leave the lab for different reasons, and may need to do so before their projects are complete. I ask that lab members discuss their plans with me as early as possible—preferably at least 6 months before their intended departure. This helps to ensure a smooth leaving process: the final months will include the hand-over of any knowledge and data needed to ensure documentation, continuity and completion of ongoing projects. As the final step prior to departure, I will organise an exit interview, carried out in private with a colleague (e.g. a SAFE lab network associate). During the interview, departing lab members will be able to discuss the reasons for leaving and provide constructive feedback based on their experience.
I commit to establish ...
... annual lab-wide meetings to review training and outcomes for “core skills”.
Details: Researchers often focus on scientific progress and neglect the development of core skills, including team management, giving/receiving feedback, writing, presentations etc. An annual meeting for lab members, including the group leader, to discuss their efforts toward improving these skills not only normalizes the process, but also alerts other lab members to potential opportunities.
Suggestions:
-Each lab member discusses training they have undertaken and shares a learning outcome.
-Survey the need for focused training: e.g. review papers, poster presentation, paper writing.
-In the leadup to the meeting, draw attention to the resources available.
-Books and resources for self-education.
-Group leader should discuss spending, grants and outlook for the future.
... a mechanism for sharing lab management updates.
Details: Lab members are often considering academia as a potential career. It informs that decision to understand how the group leader runs the lab, the responsibilities they have, and the process of funding a research team. However, lab members are typically shielded from this information. To improve transparency, and give lab members a greater insight into academic careers, group leaders should regularly communicate details of lab management.
Suggestions:
-Give an annual, or bi-annual, lab meeting on the topic of lab management.
-Sent out a regular update with the most recent lab developments information.
-Discuss spending, grant applications, and outlook for the future.
-Solicit feedback on grant applications and funding considerations.
... an objective and equitable interview process.
Details: The decision to recruit an applicant should depend on clear selection criteria to help avoid personal biases and to treat all applicants fairly. Some of the suggestions below may be impractical or impossible given institutional constraints, but group leaders should implement as many as possible.
Suggestions:
-Conduct blind CV screenings.
-Post public job advert.
-Recruit a diverse interview panel to conduct the interviews.
-Get second opinions (e.g. feedback from other lab members and collaborators).
-Ask a set of defined questions for all applicants for a given position.
-Consider the following selection process:
1. File and advertise an open call.
2. Offer an informal chat if individuals have questions.
3. Shortlist qualified candidates.
4. Invite shortlisted candidates for a formal interview.
5. Invite remaining candidates to present and talk to the lab.
6. Formalise the offer.
7. Send timely feedback to unsuccessful candidates.
Example interview questions:
Skills & motivation:
-Among your skills, which is most important to this project?
-You are applying to work on project X, where do you think this project could take us?
-You have mentioned experience with technique Y, can you briefly explain how it works?
-Can you tell us about a time when you had to solve a problem on your own?
-This project is focused on question X, what do you know about the current state of the field?
-Are you aware of any other lab working on similar/related topics?
-What is your career plan for the next 10 years?
-What motivates you to work in science?
-Which specific training are you hoping to gain by joining our lab?
Core skills & communication:
-Can you briefly explain your latest discovery to someone without a scientific background?
-What strategies do you use to keep yourself organised?
-Give an example of a creative solution you used to to solve a problem (at or outside work)?
-How would you set priorities if you spread too thin and struggling to meet deadlines?
-You need to learn a new method (to the lab), how do you approach the problem?
-Can you give an example of a situation when you had to act like a leader?
-Could you provide an example of a situation that would highlight your organisational skills?
Lab attitude (precision, thoroughness, ethics, attention to SAFE):
-What strategies do you use to ensure reproducibility in your results?
-What strategy do you use to store/archive data?
-How do you keep your code organised?
-If you realised you made an error at your work, how would you handle it?
-You suspect you’ve made an error in a procedure, how do confirm/refute this suspicion?
-Are you familiar with the concept of 3R's? Can you briefly explain them?
-Your believe your project overlaps with another lab member, how do you deal with this?
-What would you do if you realised a colleague was mis-conducting their research?