Part II: Should the h-index be modified? An analysis of the m-quotient, contemporary h-index, authorship value, and impact factor.

OBJECTIVE The widely accepted h-index depends on the citation analysis source and does not consider the authorship position, the journal's impact factor (IF), or the age of the paper or author. We investigated these factors in citation statistics of academic neurosurgeons. METHODS An uncorrected h-index and the m-quotient, which corrects for career length, were calculated by the use of Scopus and Google Scholar. In a subset of neurosurgeons, we computed the contemporary h-index (hc), which accounts for the age of the publications; the authorship value (AV), weighted by author position; and the journal IF. An "overall' average for AV and IF including most of an author's publications and an average for publications comprising the h-index ("h-index core") were calculated. RESULTS When we used Google Scholar, the mean h-index was significantly greater than that calculated when we used Scopus (P = 0.0030). m-quotient and hc-index increased with academic rank, with an m-quotient >1 achieved by 69% of chairmen and 48% of professors. The effect of AV was greatest on the greater h-indices. The average IF for the h-index core was greater than the overall IF, which did not correlate with academic rank. Few neurosurgeons consistently publish in high-impact journals. CONCLUSION Google Scholar tends to inflate the h-index. The m-quotient and hc-index allow comparisons of researchers across time. Although average journal IF did not differ significantly among neurosurgeons academic ranks, it should be noted for individuals who consistently publish in high-impact journals. We recommend the creation of individual bibliometric profiles to better compare the academic productivity of neurosurgeons.

[1]  Theodore Leng,et al.  Medical school and residency influence on choice of an academic career and academic productivity among neurosurgery faculty in the United States. Clinical article. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery.

[2]  Authorship trends in the surgical literature , 2010, The British journal of surgery.

[3]  Andrej A Romanovsky.  Revised h index for biomedical research , 2012, Cell cycle.

[4]  M. Nahata,et al.  New indices in scholarship assessment. , 2009, American journal of pharmaceutical education.

[5]  D. Rennie,et al.  Patterns of authorship among chairmen of departments of medicine , 1993, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[6]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[7]  J T King,et al.  How many neurosurgeons does it take to write a research article? Authorship proliferation in neurosurgical research. , 2000, Neurosurgery.

[8]  L. Egghe,et al.  Theory and practise of the g-index , 2006, Scientometrics.

[9]  M. Marín‐padilla.  Cephalic Axial Skeletal-Neural Dysraphic Disorders: Embryology and Pathology , 1991, Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques.

[10]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  The “Mendel syndrome” in science: durability of scientific literature and its effects on bibliometric analysis of individual scientists , 2011, Scientometrics.

[11]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  The inconsistency of the h-index , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  Oliver von Bohlen und Halbach.  How to judge a book by its cover? How useful are bibliometric indices for the evaluation of "scientific quality" or "scientific productivity"? , 2011 .

[13]  Derek Ruths,et al.  A Method for the Automated, Reliable Retrieval of Publication-Citation Records , 2010, PloS one.

[14]  Yannis Manolopoulos,et al.  Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks , 2007, Scientometrics.

[15]  Ara Darzi,et al.  How has healthcare research performance been assessed? A systematic review , 2011, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[16]  H Hunt Batjer,et al.  Standardizing the evaluation of scientific and academic performance in neurosurgery--critical review of the "h" index and its variants. , 2013, World neurosurgery.

[17]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[18]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Measuring Co-Authorship and Networking-Adjusted Scientific Impact , 2008, PloS one.

[19]  A. Kulkarni,et al.  Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. , 2009, JAMA.

[20]  M. Nahata,et al.  Publication Metrics and Record of Pharmacy Practice Chairs , 2009, The Annals of pharmacotherapy.

[21]  Lei Wang,et al.  Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science , 2006, Biomedical digital libraries.

[22]  Clive Baldock,et al.  Point/counterpoint. The h index is the best measure of a scientist's research productivity. , 2009, Medical physics.

[23]  Michael Gaster,et al.  A critical assessment of the h‐index , 2012, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[24]  J. Wilberger,et al.  Survey of the h index for all of academic neurosurgery: another power-law phenomenon? , 2010, Journal of neurosurgery.

[25]  J. Sahel.  Quality Versus Quantity: Assessing Individual Research Performance , 2011, Science Translational Medicine.

[26]  Alexander W A Kellner,et al.  H-index in the Brazilian Academy of Sciences: comments and concerns. , 2008, Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias.

[27]  Ryan D. Duffy,et al.  Measuring individual research productivity: A review and development of the integrated research productivity index. , 2008, Journal of counseling psychology.

[28]  Janet Kleber,et al.  Sometimes the impact factor outshines the H index , 2008, Retrovirology.

[29]  Daryl E. Chubin,et al.  Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? , 1979, Scientometrics.

[30]  Taimur Saleem.  Impact factor--a pandora's box. , 2009, JPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association.

[31]  Pascal Borry,et al.  Author, Contributor or Just a Signer? A Quantitative Analysis of Authorship Trends in the Field of Bioethics , 2006, Bioethics.

[32]  George S. Howard,et al.  Research Productivity in Counseling Psychology: An Update and Generalization Study. , 1983 .

[33]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level , 2007, J. Informetrics.

[34]  Michael C. Wendl,et al.  H-index: however ranked, citations need context , 2007, Nature.

[35]  J. Drenth,et al.  Multiple authorship: the contribution of senior authors. , 1998, JAMA.

[36]  Michael J. Kurtz,et al.  A Measure of Total Research Impact Independent of Time and Discipline , 2012, PloS one.

[37]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[38]  W. Couldwell,et al.  Use of the h index in neurosurgery. Clinical article. , 2009, Journal of neurosurgery.

[39]  Quentin L. Burrell,et al.  On the h-index, the size of the Hirsch core and Jin's A-index , 2007, J. Informetrics.

[40]  L. Bornmann,et al.  A New Family of Cumulative Indexes for Measuring Scientific Performance , 2012, PloS one.

[41]  David F Kallmes,et al.  Is the h-index predictive of greater NIH funding success among academic radiologists? , 2011, Academic radiology.

[42]  James R Williamson,et al.  My h-index turns 40: my midlife crisis of impact. , 2009, ACS chemical biology.

[43]  Chun-Ting Zhang,et al.  The e-Index, Complementing the h-Index for Excess Citations , 2009, PloS one.

[44]  Taimur Saleem,et al.  The Hirsch index - a play on numbers or a true appraisal of academic output? , 2011, International archives of medicine.

[45]  L. Egghe.  An improvement of the h-index: the g-index , 2006 .

[46]  Alireza Noruzi.  Google Scholar: The New Generation of Citation Indexes , 2005 .