If you are doing true research then I doubt that you can measure "short term productivity" meaningfully. You can keep track of how many papers you read in a week and how many gallons of a reactant you use up in a month, but they aren't real measures of progress, just of activity.
The problem is that progress in research requires insight and insight can't be scheduled. "I'm 30% of the way to a major insight in mumble mumble mumble". Well, maybe.
In some fields, other than research, you can do some things. Sometime in the previous century I was told by my writing/English professor that he knew a famous author who wrote every day, starting early, and only finished when he had made "one page" of progress toward his current project. So, he could write a short story every three weeks or a novel every year. But even there it wasn't always possible, because to make that one page of progress you might have to completely restructure your story, throwing out many many pages.
In research, you can go for a long time making little 'visible' progress. You accumulate small insights, but often don't recognize them until later. Then, hopefully, you get the big insight. Possibly this comes as you are falling asleep after a long, seemingly unproductive day, or when you are finishing up a fifty mile bike ride.
Research is, by definition, exploring the unknown. Scheduling activity is possible, but not insight. But, hopefully, you will know it when it happens.