BACKGROUND: An increasing number of neurological surgeons have sought fellowship 
training in recent years, and previous analyses have suggested these 
practitioners are more likely to pursue an academic career. Scholarly 
productivity is a key component in academic advancement.
OBJECTIVE: We used the h-index to evaluate whether fellowship training impacts 
research productivity and whether any differences exist in scholarly output 
among practitioners in the various neurosurgical subspecialties.
METHODS: Online listings from academic neurological surgery departments were 
used to organize faculty by academic rank and fellowship training. Using the 
Scopus database, we calculated the h-index for 869 full-time clinical faculty.
RESULTS: Mean h-index did not differ between fellowship- and 
nonfellowship-trained practitioners (h = 12.6 vs. 13.0, P = 0.96). When 
organized by academic rank, the difference between h-indices of those who 
completed fellowships was substantially greater at all ranks, with statistical 
significance at the associate professor rank (P = 0.003). Upon further 
examination by individual subspecialties, significant differences in relative 
research impact were noted (P < 0.0001). The stereotactic and functional 
fellowship was found to have the greatest mean h-index score, whereas the 
trauma/critical care fellowship had the lowest.
CONCLUSION: No significant difference existed between the mean h-index scores of 
neurological surgeons who completed fellowships and those who did not. However, 
when stratified by academic rank, a trend was observed showing greater mean 
h-index scores for those who completed fellowships. This trend persists across 
nearly all subspecialties. Overall, being a senior faculty member corresponds 
with a greater h-index score, regardless of whether a fellowship was completed.