There are endless discussions around quality, rigor, ethics, and preparation. Graduate students are monitored, assessed, and teased for being poorly prepared or slow to progress. But their conflicts and problems with their mentors and their mentoring methods are ignored. When a Ph.D. student starts with a Ph.D. research study the former is based on research. Finding a well-known supervisor who rarely leaves for research or disappears from meetings seems like a difficult, unusual, or impossible task. Ph.D. students need to be supervised by someone with an international reputation so that the name on the recommendation letter carries weight. But they also must not be professors traveling from place to place, frequently leaving campus, and missing mentoring sessions in order to advance their careers. They have to be recognized, well-known, but also able to guide you without constantly refusing to meet you just because you have to take outside of the university. Many students affirm that they never received any satisfactory, effective, or useful guidance during the study. The student in Ph.D. research-level needs to have the right to choose a supervisor with whom he has a good relationship. That will create bad cooperation and an uncreative scientific product. A good supervisor-student relationship requires the joint efforts of both parties. Many Ph.D. students get into unnecessary trouble because they make some very common mistakes in their relationship with their supervisors. Unfortunately, our experience tells us that many students do not think deeply about this relationship and that most problems are predictable and avoidable. The study aims to interpret the negative action of supervisor practices of Ph.D. students during the supervising phases and will classify the critical factors and types of bad Ph.D. supervision.