<p>Public investment in agricultural research has long been justified by its contribution to productivity growth, most commonly measured using Total Factor Productivity (TFP). Traditional TFP indicators, however, are largely based on market-valued physical inputs and outputs and do not account for the expanding set of non-market objectives that increasingly characterise public agricultural research, such as environmental sustainability, climate mitigation, animal welfare, and rural wellbeing. In response, a growing body of literature has proposed modified productivity measures—often referred to as enhanced TFP or TFP+—that incorporate environmental and social indicators. Despite this methodological development, such measures have rarely been applied in research evaluation or policy decision-making. This study conducts a systematic mapping of the agricultural economics literature to assess whether existing TFP+ approaches are sufficiently developed to support the evaluation of public agricultural research in the context of contemporary policy goals. Following PRISMA guidelines, the review identifies and analyses studies that integrate non-market indicators into agricultural productivity measurement, examining their methodological approaches, data characteristics, and potential suitability for econometric analysis of research impacts. The findings show that while TFP+ methodologies are increasingly applied—particularly using non-parametric techniques and environmental indicators such as greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution—substantial limitations remain. These include narrow coverage of non-market outcomes, short and inconsistent time series, and limited compatibility with the long lags required for robust research impact assessment. The paper concludes that, although TFP+ represents a promising conceptual advance, current methods and data are not yet adequate for informing public agricultural research funding decisions.</p>