RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Academic metrics can be used to compare the productivity of researchers. We aimed to use a variety of bibliometric parameters to assess the productivity of neurosurgeons working in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Neurosurgical consultants working in the United Kingdom were identified using the Society of British Neurosurgeons' Audit Programme website. Baseline data collected included year of entry to specialist register, academic position and award of higher degree. Google Scholar was used to compute a range of academic metrics for each consultant including the h-index, hi-norm, e-index and g-index. Non-parametric tests were used to compare median results. RESULTS: Median metrics for the whole cohort were: h-index (5), hi-norm (3), g-index (10.4) and e-index (9). The top 3 units based on h-index were Addenbrookes (13), Great Ormond Street (12.5) and Queen's Square (11.5). The h-index correlated with academic position [Prof (17.5), Senior Lecturer (10.5) and non-academic (5); P < 0.0001], higher degree [PhD (10), MD (6) and none (4.5); P < 0.0001] and consultant experience [> 10 year (7), < 10 years (4); P < 0.0001]. No difference was found based on gender [male (5), female (4); P = 0.12]. The same trends were seen across the following other metrics: hi-norm, e-index and g-index. DISCUSSION: This study details the academic impact of United Kingdom-based neurosurgeons through the analysis of a number of citation metrics. It provides a benchmark bibliometric profile and we advocate future comparative assessments as a means to assess impact of and guide academic policy.