  First, for decades the use of anonymity in reviews for science funding
proposals and for evaluating manuscripts for publication has been gradually
corrupting American science, encouraging and rewarding the dark elements of
human nature. Unethical reviewers, secure and unaccountable through anonymity,
all too often make untrue and/or pejorative statements to eliminate their
professional competitors. Survival in this corrupt environment has led to a
consensus-only mentality. Consequently, important scientific contradictions, if
they can be published at all, are selectively ignored in many instances out of
fear of anonymous retaliation. Science Citation Index data in such a corrupt
environment may be of little administrative value, except for possible use in
documenting scientific fraud. Second, as knowledge of the administrative use of
Science Citation Index data spreads, scientists will adapt and will shift to
research on popular subjects to elicit greater numbers of citations, rather
than to take the paths less trodden where important scientific discoveries may
lay waiting.
