Search

Objective: The relationship between metrics, such as the h-index, and the ability of researchers to generate funding has not been previously investigated in neurosurgery. This study was performed to determine whether a correlation exists between bibliometrics and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding data among academic neurosurgeons. Methods: The h-index, m-quotient, g-index, and contemporary h-index were determined for 1225 academic neurosurgeons from 99 (of 101) departments. Two databases were used to create the citation profiles, Google Scholar and Scopus. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports tool was accessed to obtain career grant funding amount, grant number, year of first grant award, and calendar year of grant funding. Results: Of the 1225 academic neurosurgeons, 182 (15%) had at least 1 grant with a fully reported NIH award profile. Bibliometric indices were all significantly higher for those with NIH funding compared to those without NIH funding (P < .001). The contemporary h-index was found to be significantly predictive of NIH funding (P < .001). All bibliometric indices were significantly associated with the total number of grants, total award amount, year of first grant, and duration of grants in calendar years (bivariate correlation, P < .001) except for the association of m-quotient with year of first grant (P = .184). Conclusions: Bibliometric indices are higher for those with NIH funding compared to those without, but only the contemporary h-index was shown to be predictive of NIH funding. Among neurosurgeons with NIH funding, higher bibliometric scores were associated with greater total amount of funding, number of grants, duration of grants, and earlier acquisition of their first grant. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]