Im near the end of my PhD and I have 2, but I know people with alot more.

It's a bit of a "how long is a piece of string" question. In theory one can complete a PhD without any papers. But papers show examiners that the work has already been peer-reviewed as publishable quality, and in a competitive job market papers are vital to getting a postdoc or job. As for the number, that will depend on the perceived or measured quality of the journal in relation to others in the field: one great article in one of the best might be seen as better than two in middling journals. Who can say, really? I guess with two you're doing well. That would certainly seem to be on course with my own peers in the humanities. Perhaps it is different in the sciences, but it would be rare to finish a 3 -4 year humanities PhD with "lots of papers". I have 1 average ranking journal, 1 good, and 1 excellent - and certainly won't be squeezing any more out until I finish my PhD!!

There is no "should" to having papers since it is possible to get a PhD without them, it all depends on what kind of career you want afterwards. Chill, 2 seems fine. :)

It depends on your field. In experimental sciences, it is normal to have one first author paper which presents the major finding of your PhD research (this is often obtained after your PhD because of the length review process) and maybe a couple of middle author ones (from helping other people in your group do their work). In theoretical or computational sciences, you might be expected to publish more regularly, like once a year. Of course, much depends on your ambitions too, if you have no intention of staying in academia then I would not bother with publishing work at all.

Well, I was at a training session recently and the editor of a very well-respected journal in archaeology (I'm in Classics so it's not necessarily the same) said that many disciplines are now expecting four peer-reviewed publications to consider you for an academic job. It's not apparently true for all disciplines but he did say it was becoming more common! I don't know how true this is but I was well and truly panicked: I'm at the start of my second year and I can't see myself being able to produce 4 publications by the time I'm applying for a job! However, I know that the book is the most important aim in Classics so this may well affect things regarding papers. Hmm. :-(

I don't really know but I guess as many as possible. I have just started my 2nd year in a PhD in clinical psychology and had my first paper published at the end of 1st year, but not many people who started at the same time as me have had anything published yet, and I know of 3rd years who don't have any publications. I spoke to my supervisor a few weeks ago about this and she is wanting me to have about 5 or 6 from my PhD work and although I can see where they could potentially come from (e.g. two review papers, about 3 from the results- 1 cross-sectional, 1 longitudanal, 1 qualitative- and a paper based on the discussion and implications for clinical practice) I am less than convinced about having the time to actually write all of these and submit them! There is research that suggests that people who do their PhD by publication take on average an extra four months to complete (can't remember the reference!), but then if you don't publish as you go along and you want to carry on in academia you would have to spend time on publishing after you finished your PhD anyway. I guess it matters less if you don't want a future in academia. Personally, in a competitive subject and in a competitive world, I wouldn't want to complete my PhD with no publications and if it takes me an extra few months then so be it! Though I think I would be happy with 3-4, I'm not optimistic about 5 or 6 at the moment! KB