“Why should we choose to quantify our scholarly output in this way? Our answer would be: so as to be fair and to create a reward that is a reflection of what is important to impart, which is more than just the contents of a scientific paper.” Be careful what you wish for, it might just come true. One basic assumption made by Bourne and Fink is that quantification of our scholarly output is a good thing. I must agree that in many aspects of our life quantification is a good thing. However, all of us have encountered at some point also the dark side of this approach. Every time our career is measured by some university committee we find that what we thought to be a beneficial tool can turn into a weapon of mass destruction in the hand of a committee. On many occasions when given a “quantitative measure” these committees will stop using common sense and revert to bean counting. All of us have had, at least on once occasion, to explain why the journals we publish in are important although their impact factor are low. Imagine that in some not so distant day a committee evaluating your career will need “only” to focus on one number! How easy will their life be and how many good scientists will be thrown out of the system in this way. The core of the academic system is the deep individualism and creativity of its members. By assigning numbers to creativity we will stifle those individuals that are at the margins of our community. In my opinion these margins are the most important of all for the survival of the system. Finally, I find the idea of “tagging” a scientist revolting. George Orwell is probably turning in his grave right now.