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.