The purpose of this article is to theoretically outline and empirically test two contribution-based indicators: (1) the scholars' annual contribution-based measurement and (2) the annual contribution modified h-index, computing six criteria: total number of papers, computed SCImago Journal Rank values, total number of authors, total number of citations of a scholar’s work, number of years since paper publication and number of annual paper citations.
Despite widespread scholarly agreement about the relevance of research production in evaluation and recruitment processes, the proposed mechanisms for gauging publication output are still rather elementary, consequently obscuring each individual scholar’s contributions. This study utilised the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution method, and the authors built two indicators to value author's contribution.
To test both indicators, this study focussed on the most productive scholars in communication during a specific time period (2017–2020), ranking their annual research contribution and testing it against standard productivity measures (i.e. number of papers and h-index).
This article contributes to current scientometric studies by addressing some of the limitations of aggregate-level measurements of research production, providing a much-needed understanding of scholarly productivity based on scholars' actual contribution to research.
