In Estonia, in theory, all full-time employees have to work 40 hours a week (8 hours a day for 5 days), but in the academia, working hours vary: e.g. sometimes conferences start at 8.30 in the morning, presentations end at 17.30, dinner (also half-work as you talk to other scholars) starts at 19.00 and ends at 23.00 (and some conferences are held at weekends, too); sometimes courses are taught on Saturdays and Sundays, sometimes, when deadlines are close, people work until midnight and at weekends without any compensation for extra hours... Also, results don't always depend on the number of working hours or the hours worked at the university (some people work better at home: e.g. if they are working on literature reviews). Sometimes you can do more in 2 hours than sometimes in 2 days. The results count.

It just customary in academica to not be so pedantic in logging hours as you would with an employer. It's an honor system as well as a salary pay system. If you were being paid per hour, then there would be more stringent policies in place.

The guys above are spot on. In most countries most academic supervisors are worried only about the results - so as long as you get them they are usually happy. Usually this means you end up working longer the more you research project progresses as even if you get good results at the start this only presents more questions that need answered and you create more work. In my 1st year I worked a little less hard than I should, in my final year I took less than half my holidays and ended up working 16 hrs a day for the last couple of months. Working efficiently and effectively is more important than working long.

What kind of scholarship is yours? In my opinion scholars are not employees (unless there're written criteria in your protocol). So, your workhours are upto you and your supervisor. In general, supervisors really care about the outcomes of the research not your workhours.

First of all thanks to Tiia, Adam, James and Serdar for sharing your views. All the points mentioned are right but very trivial I mean very common belief of a scholar which I also came across. I would like to point one by one:

Tiia:

Perfectly this is the rule world wide after may day. Yes its also true that the results count but is it for always ? Even if you are getting your results or not who finalizes that, you or your supervisor ? Did you ever faced something when a guide by mentioning a schedule tells you that this is my rule for working in lab. I can assure you, its quite common around us. Is any person authorized to tell me that I should work higher that 8 hours a day ??

Adam:

You are right. Its true that PhD is a honorary system with a honorary payment for appreciation of our work, but is that for infinite working duration ? When there is no protocol, you can be modulated by your boss (in other terms the supervisor) by any means. Do you think its acceptable ?

James:

Yes in most countries and most of the supervisors are bothered about only result. Its true. Moreover its true whenever its required you need to work keeping your watch inside a drawer, but thats for your own requirement and by your own choice. I feel it cannot be a "rule" from a supervisor saying this is my working hours in lab. Till day I stay and work in lab from 9 (morning) to 12 (night) irrespective saturday sunday or any holiday. But thats by my own choice, which should never ever be a rule mentioned from any guide from any lab.

Serdar:

I am a national fellow, CSIR SRF. You are right that we are not employees, and no protocol is mentioned for our working hour. Thats the point of mine.... WHY ? Indian labour law says its daily 8 hours for 5 days in a weak. As we are not employee does it mean we are worst than a labour in INDIA ?

All of you are right that supervisor really care about the outcome but its not true that they don't care about the work hour. They do and not only in work hour but in many other cases. I strongly dislike this inherent tendency of bossiness.

If we are not employees there should not be any bosses, and no imposed rules.

Isn't it ???

Fortunately I've never worked in a lab, as my research area is international business: thus, I never depended much on my supervisor. Maybe, in your case, it would be possible to find another lab in your or other university (maybe even abroad: e.g. maybe you could become an exchange student for a year) or change a supervisor?

No working hours. You need to complete the objectives outlined in the problem you have choosen.

A lot depends on the discipline and the educational traditions. In France and in the 1980s. A PhD researcher was absolutely free in organizing his work. The first day I met my supervisor ( Prof. Armando Cisternas) he provided me with a master key that can open all doors of the various laboratories and adminstrative rooms At the Institut of Physics of the Earth - University of Strasbourg, 30 years later I still have tyat key which can be used. Excellence goes side by side with freedom. This meant particularly that in the final 16 months of the PhD period which lasted 4.5 years average working hours were about 16 hours a day. There eere many problems related to the computational capacities at that time, computers speed and there limited capabilites of handling big data. I produced the first comlpete prototype of the digital seismotectonic map centered on the Jordan Dead Sea transform System at 02h46 AM on June 12, 1987 where I had to defend my Thesis at 11 AM of the same day.

From my point of view, the total research hours is not important to be defined. The most important thing its value. The PhD scholar must present new idea or explore new laboratory results that would be helpful for human activities.

regards

Agree with Raed. Some topics may take you lots of time to read and think, while others may consumes less time. The quality of outcome (idea) is the key.

You have raised a very valid point.