Productive but not respected advisor - Should I continue with him? My situation is the following: I have a very productive but not respected advisor. By productive I mean that he has published a lot, and with not respected that his work is not cited by anyone except himself (his top paper has 20 citations, 15 from himself).

I will get my master's degree in 6 months, so I need to decide where to do my PhD. To be honest I don't know is my advisor doing real science. Am I judging his career too hard? At least I would not hope to be in the same situation as he is after the next ten years. Also, he demands me to do things exactly as he wants, so I have been thinking this issue a lot.

If you think I should not continue with him, can you tell me what kind of publication record I should demand from my advisor?
There are reasons for setting aside the issue of your potential PhD supervisor's publication record for the purposes of deciding whether to carry on  working with him - these reasons are set out in other answers. 

You also need to think about whether your - or any - potential PhD supervisor's working habits is a good fit with yours. When considering whether to continue with specifically this supervisor, you comment as follows:


  Also, he demands me to do things exactly as he wants, so I have been thinking this issue a lot.


So - is this a good thing for you, or a bad thing? Was that working relationship a positive or not? You mention that you've been thinking about this a lot, and I urge you to be clear about the answer in your own mind before you commit to a PhD program. Perhaps working like this was okay for a MSc project; I suspect that it could well be a problem during a PhD.

What were the experiences of other PhD students in this regard? Did they all have similar feelings regarding how he manages the research of his team?