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.