  In academia, the research performance of a faculty is either evaluated by the
number of publications or the number of citations. Most of the time h-index is
widely used during the hiring process or the faculty performance evaluation.
The calculation of the h-index is shown in various databases; however, there is
no systematic evidence about the differences between them. Here we analyze the
publication records of 385 authors from Monash University (Australia) to
investigate (i) the impact of different databases like Scopus and WoS on the
ranking of authors within a discipline, and (ii) to complement the $h$-index,
named $h_c$, by adding the weight of the highest cited paper to the $h$-index
of the authors. The results show the positive impact of $h_c$ on the
lower-ranked authors in every discipline. Also, Scopus provides an overall
better ranking than WoS; however, the ranking varies among Scopus and WoS for
disciplines.
