Csdrhrt

I think in a very real sense, you are, in fact, interviewing potential advisers. It would be rather disingenuous for a potential adviser to believe that he or she is beyond the bounds of accountability for his/her research record. I would say something such as the following:

I am interested in participating in publishing papers. Would we be able to publish papers together?

What types of projects/papers have you worked on in the last few years?

What are some of the current papers or projects you are working on?

A quality adviser would have quality answers for these questions. Moreover, they would know that it would play in their favor to have at least some explanation as to why they have not published lately. These questions will open the door for them to provide an explanation of their research record. If they seem to dodge around that time period, I'm honestly not sure that they should be your number one choice for an adviser.

I would also verify that this is not just a matter of their CV being out of date. Perhaps they have published papers and just have not updated their CV in a while.

Aside: If I can give my personal thoughts on choosing a young, unproven adviser, I would recommend avoiding professors who have not established themselves somewhat. I have seen a number of PhD students who run into issues when they choose a professor who has not yet been given tenure and who is constrained by the "publish or perish" mentality.

Given the publish or perish mentality, a (young) researcher that "has published...nothing for the last 3 years" is heading towards perishing, at least, they are in many disciplines.*

Although I agree with Buffy that "[they] may [have] a lot of work in progress but not yet ready" and that "sit down conversation, not just an email" is most appropriate, I feel that nothing for three years is simply too long and it doesn't give much confidence that they can help you churn out publications (to get a PhD).

I recommend rethinking their suitability as a supervisor.

*As noted in the comments, established researchers (or researchers with protected employment statuses) enjoy more freedom.

^{I'm not an advocate of the publish or perish mentality, but that's the world we live in.}

Just to point out some possible reasons that may be entirely private and something they don't want to discuss with anyone :

• Were on national "military" service (which does not always require you to be in the military, BTW).


• Had or has an illness or a family member who was or is seriously ill. ( And this may itself make it impossible for them to be removed from their position depending on the nature of their contract and local laws).


• Suffered a bereavement - if you're young and have not lost anyone really close, you need to understand this can be shattering and take years to recover from.


• Likes to teach and is good enough at it to satisfy the institute's needs - teaching is a vocation and it's a pity it's not more respected at third level.


• Has a permanently tenured position they can't be removed from - rare but possible


• Was doing confidential work, e.g. for government or commercial, which can't be published.


• Took time off to wander the Earth (or whatever). By the time you complete a PhD you'll probably need/want to do that too, as it's emotionally, physically and mentally exhausting.


• May have been on some sort of parental leave, part time or full time. Note that in some places men get parental leave entitlement too, so gender may not be an issue.


• May be involved in a long term study or studies that requires a lot of work but generates no publishing opportunities.

I'd also caution against dismissing a non-publishing supervisor. Publishing may be the common goal nowadays but it doesn't mean it's a good idea. I'd honestly prefer fewer publications of higher quality and real depth than the rush to publish anything mentality we have now. Not being published does not mean they're not a good supervisor, or even that they don't know a great deal about the field(s) that interest you. A supervisor is someone who offers intellectual and administrative support and advice to you. You need a supportive mentor who can steer you through the difficult process of getting a PhD. Not all research publication orientated supervisors are good at this, IMO. Is their being published frequently relevant to your getting a PhD ? That's your decision.

You do need to sit down and discuss your issue with the potential supervisor. As someone suggested, it's best to think of this as you interviewing them just as much as they'll be interviewing you. Both parties need to know that the person on the other side of the table is someone who is going to do what they need.

Remember when talking to them that you may be hitting sensitive issues they're not comfortable with, so watch out for negative reactions.

@AlphaZero's comment was very relevant :

Make the question sound as if it's your inability to look, not that there's nothing to see. "I've been trying to find some of your recent papers but I can't seem to locate anything, can you point me in the right direction please..."

Maybe add that you're interested in making sure you're both a good match.

Just straight up and ask him. Short direct question without fencing, apologies, or caveats. Then shut up and listen to what he says and let him speak at length. Sort of like how Brian Lamb does interviews. If you are skillful, you can even use silence from a quick response to compel a deeper explanation.

It's probable that the guy is not right guy to advise you, irrespective of his answer. But who knows, maybe you learn something to change your mind. Or just to know what he is up to.

If he says "I'm a p-chemist and have been building a laser for last 3 years", it's actually a good response. But don't believe him when he says it is about to start spitting out publications. It will need another 3 years.

If he gets upset, then that is one more learning why to avoid him. Don't mince around too much with these guys like a mouse.

Frame challenge to your question

I don't want to seem rude - or to seem that I am interviewing them.

This is an abdication of your responsibility to simultaneously interview those who are interviewing you, and an unethical position which privileges those with institutional power to dictate the terms of a negotiation (implying that 'negotiation' should be coercive).

Second, professors live interesting lives with many demands. Were I asked by a prospective student, mentee, etc. "Out of curiosity I while I was reading up on your research, I noticed you haven't published on these topics recently. Are you still engaged with research in this area?" I would feel (1) this person took the time to learn about my interests and engage with me about them, (2) they are interested in knowing about my current research directions, and (3) they want to understand the work demands on a researcher in my area, all of which speak well of them from their side of the interview.

You should certainly ask a potential advisor about what they've been working on. To fully understand a publication gap, it may be important to learn something about their career goals and motivation. These kind of questions can seem a little impertinent if you ask them indelicately. A canned question is unlikely to serve you well here, but realize during the back and forth with this person that you want to understand their motivations. Having worked under someone who wanted to publish every little observation, and also someone who didn't want to publish until we had something earth shattering, it's good to learn these things up front. Both can be frustrating -- more so, if you didn't see it coming.

I'd add, you may be able to learn a fair amount in a sit-down discussion with this potential advisor, but you won't get the entire picture without talking to their students and staff. Ultimately, it is more important to know if this person will be supportive of your developing career and your publication goals.

I think that any real scientist can easily answer any of such questions.
If not, he is not real scientist. Doesn't matter how much he has in publication or any of so-called "scientological" metrics (I am making fun of any "metrics" because those are what bureacracy wants, any real scientist does NOT).

What you are essentially doing is asking the scientist: "Look dude, I'm having this stupid metrics of mine, and this metrics says you have low something. Tell me about this low something please".

Of cause any real scientist will understand and tell you that it is your metrics speaking, but not his works.

Perelman practically didn't publish anything from 1995 to 2000.
Result: Proof of PC.
So maybe it's a good thing your potential advisor didn't publish in the last few years ;)