  Like it or not, attempts to evaluate and monitor the quality of academic
research have become increasingly prevalent worldwide. Performance reviews
range from at the level of individuals, through research groups and
departments, to entire universities. Many of these are informed by, or
functions of, simple scientometric indicators and the results of such exercises
impact onto careers, funding and prestige. However, there is sometimes a
failure to appreciate that scientometrics are, at best, very blunt instruments
and their incorrect usage can be misleading. Rather than accepting the rise and
fall of individuals and institutions on the basis of such imprecise measures,
calls have been made for indicators be regularly scrutinised and for
improvements to the evidence base in this area. It is thus incumbent upon the
scientific community, especially the physics, complexity-science and
scientometrics communities, to scrutinise metric indicators. Here, we review
recent attempts to do this and show that some metrics in widespread use cannot
be used as reliable indicators research quality.
