Background: One way to strengthen research integrity, is through supervision. According to previous research, a supervisor should be well versed in responsible research practices (RRPs) and possess the necessary interpersonal skills to convey RRPs. Therefore, we developed a pilot training programme for PhD supervisors that combined RRPs and interpersonal skills and evaluated participants’ perceptions. Our aim was to assess: 1) perceptions regarding supervision skills before and after the pilot training and 2) participants’ views on combining RRPs and interpersonal skills in the program.Methods: We developed a 3-day pilot training based on our investigations regarding the research climate for integrity in Amsterdam. Before and after the pilot, we sent the Research Supervision Quality Evaluation survey to the participating PhD supervisors and their PhD candidates. We gathered feedback on the training topics through daily evaluations. The pilot study was concluded with a focus group interview where participants discussed the quality of the training, deliberated over the combination of training in interpersonal skills and RRPs and discussed whether such training should become compulsory.Results: Twenty-one PhD supervisors participated in the pilot training of whom 95% had a biomedical background. Before the pilot, 20 supervisors and 23 PhD candidates completed the survey. 11 supervisors and 11 PhD candidates completed the final survey. Both supervisors and PhD candidates were more positive about the supervisor’s interpersonal skills and the ability to foster RRPs after the training. Participants were enthusiastic about the training’s dual focus. They believed that making the training compulsory would be undesirable but supported other ways of incentivising participation.Discussion: Participants appreciated the combination of RRPs and interpersonal skills. Their self-perceptions regarding supervision skills echo this positive view. The results highlight the potential of dedicated RRPs training programmes for supervisors. However, they should be interpreted with caution, as they regard a small sample of volunteering PhD supervisors, underscoring the need for larger scale programs to foster responsible supervision that are evaluated using rigorous designs.