  In a critical and provocative paper, Abramo and D'Angelo claim that commonly
used scientometric indicators such as the mean normalized citation score (MNCS)
are completely inappropriate as indicators of scientific performance. Abramo
and D'Angelo argue that scientific performance should be quantified using
indicators that take into account the productivity of a research unit. We
provide a response to Abramo and D'Angelo, indicating where we believe they
raise important issues, but also pointing out where we believe their claims to
be too extreme.
