OBJECTIVE: The h-index was introduced as a means of quantifying the contribution 
a researcher makes to the scientific literature. We evaluated the h-index for 
academic neurosurgeons to assess the various methods of calculation and to 
determine whether the h-index can be used to differentiate groups of individuals 
by various classifications.
METHODS: The h-index was calculated for all neurosurgeons from 10 institutions 
ranked highly by 2012 U.S. News & World Report plus the authors' institution via 
Scopus. The h-index also was calculated manually to evaluate its accuracy. The 
average h-index was calculated for groups on the basis of sex, academic rank, 
years in practice, institution, and subspecialty. Cumulative and mean h-indices 
were calculated for each department.
RESULTS: The median h-index for the 188 neurosurgeons was 16 (mean, 19.71; 
range, 0-61). There was a positive association between the h-index, academic 
rank, and years posttraining. There was a significant difference between the 
"manually calculated" and automated h-indices, particularly for more senior 
physicians. The difference in h-index between men and women was not 
statistically significant. Among subspecialties, vascular surgeons had the 
greatest average h-index and general neurosurgeons had the lowest. There were 
significant shifts in departmental rankings when the cumulative or mean 
departmental indices were compared with the U.S. News & World Report rankings.
CONCLUSION: Application of the h-index as a bibliometric in neurosurgery can 
distinguish academic productivity on the basis of academic rank, years 
posttraining, and neurosurgical subspecialties. The application of the h-index 
to compare departments is problematic and, at this time, not reliable.