Background The evaluation of research productivity and impact has been a subject of significant interest among scientists. Established metrics like the h-index have been extensively employed to measure researchers’ influence by considering their publication and citation records. Nevertheless, the shortcomings associated with these conventional metrics have highlighted the necessity for novel approaches that can offer a more comprehensive and precise assessment of research productivity. Objective: The primary objective of this manuscript is to present pioneering approaches for evaluating research productivity through the introduction of novel formulas for calculating the h-index. Methods: The traditional h-index has been widely used as a metric to evaluate the impact of researchers’ scholarly output based on citation counts. However, it has limitations in capturing the comprehensive research productivity of individuals. To address this, we have developed and present two new h-index formulas that provide a more holistic assessment of research productivity. Firstly, we will calculate h-index of authors considering their only first authored articles. Secondly, we will calculate h-index of authors considering their only corresponding authored articles. Results: The first proposed method incorporates not only citation counts but also considers additional factors such as co-authorship contributions and group citation. This expanded h-index provides a more comprehensive evaluation of a researcher’s overall impact and productivity. The second method introduces a dynamic h-index that considers the temporal aspect of research productivity. By incorporating the time factor, this method provides insights into the growth and sustained impact of researchers’ work over time. Conclusion: The introduction of these novel h-index methods revolutionizes research productivity measurement by overcoming the limitations of traditional h-index calculations. These approaches offer a more comprehensive and nuanced evaluation of researchers’ scholarly output, encompassing diverse factors such as collaboration, publication quality, and temporal trends. Implementing these innovative methods can enhance the accuracy and fairness of research evaluation processes, promoting a more holistic understanding of researchers’ contributions and fostering advancements in scientific knowledge.
