David Colquhoun’s comment in reply to Ian’s post elsewhere in this forum are worth a discussion thread of their own, I think, so I am reproducing a summary (for length reasons) here. David writes:

There are three separate problems that need to be kept distinct.
(1) Are any sort of publications metrics suitable for assessing people?
(2) Are any sort of publications metrics suitable for assessing institutions?
(3) How accurately can each sort of metric can be measured.
There is little point in discussing (3) unless the answer to (1) or (2) is yes.
It is very easy to see that the answer to (1) is no, simply by applying the proposed measure to someone who commands universal respect in you own field.
The answer to (2)is perhaps more difficult. The argument against using methods like that is partly their undemonstrated worth, but also the distortion of science that their imposition will undoubtedly produce. The pressure to produce cheap headline-grabbing work will be enormous. The long-term reputation of science will surely be damaged by this sort of bean-counting approach.
(Please see David’s full comment for further details and references for his reasoning.)
What are your views?