I recently got a PhD offer and would appreciate to hear what you think.

The department is good and the professor well-known. I've worked with the post-doc who'd supervise me before and we get on very well. BUT he (post-doc) hasn't published much. Would that be a problem?

is it a science, arts or socialscience PhD? one of my prospective supervisors is an expert in my field (socialscience).he's bn in research for 30 years, but published less than 5 papers. in my opinion, its not really a problem as you can draw from their wealth of experience, but the issue is you'd have to actively ask for their opinion all the time as they don't have much work for you to refer to. with regards to job prospects after the phd, am not too sure. i'd be happy to know what others think.

Since you seem to already get on with your supervisor, they might, even though they haven't personally published much, be able to refer you to the works of other academics with whom they would concur with had they published. in my opinion, if you get on with him, stick with him. it will save you the agony of taking time to create a good working relationship with a new supervisor.

Thanks sweetchic. The field is biology. Basically, my concern is that I'll end up publishing as little, and with no publications you're nobody. Apart from that I'm sure he'd be a wonderful supervisor and be able to teach me a lot.

The question you need to ask is WHY the Post-doc hasn't got more papers? Is it because (like me!) they’re a fairly new post-doc and haven't yet turned the thesis chapters in papers? Is it because his work was commercially sensitive and hence, he has not been allowed to put the info in the public domain? Perhaps his PhD did not result in much publishable work? Perhaps he's just a bit slack at writing papers?! I wouldn't be too concerned about it (your supervisor's publication record is more relevant). All the best.

hey Jenny, remember....how much you publish only depends on you. just coz he'll supervise you, doesn't mean you'll turn out like him. you can be somebody if you want, by taking the initiative to publish rather than letting someone else determine when you will :). all the best.

I agree with Ann, the real question is WHY. If this has to do with the project being too difficult to handle easy- don't touch it. Why don't you ask about papers they are planing to publish, it's less rude than asking why he hasn't published recently. Also, if he is planing a big science paper it just might take some time to get the data ready.

I’m so grateful that FindAPhD exists. I really don’t know what to do and I appreciate your advice very much. I believe he hasn’t published due to a number of reasons, one of them being that he’s partly changed his focus in becoming a post-doc and has not yet found his niche. I know this is worrying him, so I think he’ll be working hard the coming years to get more publications.

I’m of course totally incompetent to judge the quality of his current project, but when we discussed it, I found it sensible (even if everything fails he believes he’ll be able to make at least one decent paper out of it). Also, I really respect him as a person and I think he has a sound view on science.

I believe I could get another PhD position somewhere more prestigious, but then again I know good supervisors are hard to come by. I’ve done lab work in other places where I found the people nice, but with this post-doc science is really fun (though I suppose not even he can make the pursuit of a PhD thoroughly agreeable). But I want to continue in academia after the PhD and then I need good publications.

How important is the prestige of the university when deciding a PhD? Besides looking at the supervisor, dept, research group and place you'll live?

Besides looking at the supervisor, dept, research group and place you'll live the overall reputation of the University should make little difference.