Peer reviewed journal publications (metrics of journal quality / impact, authorship, circulation, acceptance rate, disciplinary consistency)

Books (type of book, audience, publisher)• book chapters or compilations• other forms of monographs (outlets with metrics of quality / impact)

Published proceedings (corresponding meeting significance, nationally / internationally recognized, selectivity of proceedings - best paper or all)

presentations (type and reputation of meeting - nationally / internationally recognized)

Grant funding.

Let's start with 'metrics'. As a method of measuring something, or the results obtained from this, it's not commensurate with the researcher's scientific or scholarly research results. If someone falls in love, what would be a 'metrics' of this love, or results of this love: 95%, or 100%, or 200%, etc., or -100%, -200%, etc.?

As far as 'indicators' of scientific or scholarly research results are concerned, they're much more definitive, tangible, and specific, for instance:

1. Senior research position

2. Wages, bonuses, premiums, grants

3. Prestigious professorship and/or fellowships

4. Visible presence at respective scientific societies

5. National medals

6. International signs of recognition

7. Expert level advisor at the leading research and government bodies

Research stat , citations , h-index these are theoretical measure of research .

But actual scientific contribution depends on applicability of research in society ,

economy , growth of the country . A combination of these above two is the good quality of a research work .

The indicators are many (too many) and new ones can be invented continuously.

The point is: how much research does humanity really need? (considering only the enormous harvest of publications produced in the last twenty years).

This is the question.

In my humble opinion, we do science because we want to understand the composition and behavior of things in order to exploit them for the growth of mankind. There are currently too many published journal papers, books etc. Most of them too are repetitions. To me, as the phrase scientific contribution means, a true measure of a researcher's scientific contribution is the influence of his/her work in advancing the course of science (ie. Helping to better understand things and how they behave...). The current metrics are definitely insufficient to accurately measure it.

Significant impact, innovation, current need, and community service are all indicators of research contributions.

Of course, existing bibliometric indicators have many drawbacks. But, in my opinion, an imperfect indicator is better than a complete absence of an indicator. On the other hand, in every field of science there is a common opinion about "who is who", but it is not formalized.

Grants and publications are most important measures.

The Question specifically ask how to "measure" scientific contributions.

Apart from Prizes, Awards, and Fellowships, the quality of scientific contributions can be measured through a researcher's Citations and h-index.

Can see the research status in research scholar.

Thanks dear @Joshua O. Ighalo for your valuable input.

I do agree that citations are only one component of the researcher's work, so other academic and scientific contributions need to be considered.

Thanks dear @Anastas Ivanov Ivanov for your enlightening classification.

As you mentioned, "Scientific contributions are those that extend the scientific front forward."

So, what are the possible measurements and comparisons for such contributions between researchers?

Seems like each category you mentioned has its own measurements and benchmarks..

To Joshua O. Ighalo:

I am glad we are on the same wave length.

Following

Thanks dear Anastas Ivanov Ivanov for your very enlightening comments!

In my opinion, the number of readings taken by researchers, the recommendations and citations of the research. There is no one who wants to read something that does not reflect a good research.

I feel that there is a good amount of research and scientific contribution which never makes it to a wider audience,for a variety of reasons(e.g.publication in journals with a very small or narrow readership,lack of funding etc etc),and we clearly don't see that.

Of the research that does make it to a sufficiently wide or targeted audience,those that make a significant impact or advance work in that area are the ones we should judge as being the best.

How to measure that may contain subjective or objective elements,such as peer-to-peer recommendation,or the number of reads/citations in major journals.

Lack of reads does not neccessarily mply poor research.i

Mohamad - There are several different metrics that determine an individual's scientific caliber based on the quantity and quality of the individual's peer-reviewed publications. However, most of these metrics assume that all authors contribute equally when a paper has multiple authors. The assumption is that there is some bias in these metrics. Currently, one of the most common measures of an individual's scientific impact is the H-index, which reflects both a researcher's number of publications and number of citations per publication (a measure of the publication's quality). Specifically, a scientist has a value h if h of their papers have at least hcitations each, and their other papers are less frequently cited. The H-index does not account for the possibility that some collaborators may have contributed more than others on a paper.

Dear Mohamad-Hani Temsah , let me bring fine resource.

Learn about 11 key research performance metrics and discover new ways that you can engage with these metrics to support institutional goals.

Dear Dr Manzoor Hussain , you MUST cite the resources which were used in your contribution. I have recognized two of them. Otherwise, it may be considered as bad practice of plagiarism!!!

https://phys.org/news/2013-06-scientific-impact.html

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_is_important_for_a_researcher-impact_factor_citation_index_or_h_index

Scientific contribution can be measured by the number of followers, because they usually continue you field of reseach

Thanks @Aleksandr Maryukhin for your comment. I presume yes, one of the measurements of the scientific research is its followers and eventually more interactions and citations.

Citations, TRI and the h-index.

I agree with you Joshua that while H-index is a good comparison, however, it should be compared with the researcher's scope of scientific research.

I have realised today about this fine web page with many resources, regarding H index and its variants. They do have a lot of facts regarding standarization of the h-index for comparing scientific that work in different scientific fields.

https://sci2s.ugr.es/hindex

What are the researches contributing to, if I may ask. If there is no way to apply the results of a research, then it has made no contributions. It is just like an exercise in futility. The real contribution is in national economic growth and development. Citations are mere references to what was already done in that area. the ease of application and the utility of the scientific research results are my sincere evaluation metrics of scientific contributions. Large volumes of citations and high H-indices mean nothing if the research itself does not translate to result-oriented applications in solving national economic problems to promote growth and development. The differences in the databases that compute citations and H-indices indicate some level of bias in assessment. You do not need any citation to demonstrate the scientific contribution of Sir Frederick Griffith and the McCleod, McCarthy experiments on the DNA molecule.

Dear Mohamad-Hani Temsah

The following link may be helpful

https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-make-a-scientific-contribution

Regards