This would to more harm than good. Using automated methods to evaluate science can only make things worse. Hiring committees and funding authorities already re

This would to more harm than good. Using automated methods to evaluate science can only make things worse. Hiring committees and funding authorities already rely on way too many automatic indicators such as impact factors and citation indices anyway, despite the fact that nobody has ever been called a great scientist because he or she published a lot, and, even worse than that, in the humanities people often get quoted a lot and make a career because they published a really bad article that somehow made it into a good journal. Everybody tries to correct them, they publish a few even more outraging and stubborn follow-ups and pronto - they've got their tenure. I've seen that more than once. Besides, whether journals show up in search results or not is also not that important. This is important to find readers and followers, but what counts more for many individual researchers nowadays is whether or not publications show up in their CV. To fix the problem, universities and funding authorities must return to putting a higher emphasis on the scientific evaluation of the actual work of scientists, evaluate their results, their approaches and how promising their line of research is, instead of bean counting. There is no other way to ensure quality other than evaluating on the basis of quality rather than quantity.