<p>What do you all think of potentially working with an adviser that hasn’t published anything in the past year, 2 years, 3 years, or 5 years? I don’t know what to make of it. Does it mean that their website isn’t updated? Are they lacking funding? Are they a good adviser? Is it a good school? Are they good researchers?</p>
<p>If you are in the sciences, you need to check PubMed for his publications. Sometimes gaps can be explained by sabbaticals, but generally, having no papers for greater than 2 years is a red flag.</p>
<p>As for what it means, that is very variable. Very long periods are NOT good and you should discount that immediately. So if it’s been 3-4 years, I wouldn’t even consider it. If it’s been 2-3 or less, that is still worrisome. It could be a problem with funding, motivation, or other big issues that require serious consideration on your part. However, know that when people setup new labs, there can also be gaps in publishing so make sure to look at the institutions on his papers to see when he switched from his old lab to this one.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t trust the lab website. But, if on pubmed an established professor has not published for 2 years its a huge red flag. If the professor is young , it can take some time to get stuff going, in which case I would be a bit less worried, but still look into funding status.</p>
<p>If you’re serious about that person’s lab, you should also keep tabs on him (a Pubmed alert, e.g.) in case there’s something in the pipeline.</p>
<p>Thanks everyone!</p>
<p>That sure is a big warning sign there. I worked with an advisor whom I think havent got a publication in the biological sciences, or very few I think so…and when I run into problems and need help troubleshooting with experiments, he often refers me to others and just dispenses some weird advices whom eventually led to more time-wasting experiments…this is why in future i tell myself to work with someone who definitely has some recent publications, has passion for the sciences.</p>
<p>I don’t think publications are indicative of how helpful an advisor will be in troubleshooting experiments…or in keeping you on track…</p>
<p>ec1234:</p>
<p>Perhaps not directly, but long periods between publishes clearly indicates something is wrong. Whatever that is could really affect the people in the lab, because it could dictate where the advisor is focusing. It could also mean the advisor is not providing enough support for the individuals in the lab to have their projects published.</p>
<p>I definitely agree that long periods between publications mean something is wrong. You just can’t say the opposite-- that publications mean that everything is right. And even if everything is “right” it may not be right for you. For example, a professor could publish a lot in very big journals, but the reason that the science gets into very big journals is because he has multiple people working on the same project making it a very stressful environment. Alternatively, the lab could just be huge, and you might get a professor who sends you elsewhere for help and isn’t good at troubleshooting, but by shear size of lab its okay if half of the lab is floundering. </p>
<p>It;s about deciding what role you want your advisor to play in your life, and then picking an advisor that fits the role. If you want a very laid back graduate career and don’t plan on continuing in academia, then perhaps publication record does not matter as much (assuming the prof already has tenure, or won’t go up for tenure while you are there)</p>