There are issues trying to quantify science (eg using citation counts) - and of course this paper uses metrics to try and show metrics based science is flawed.

There are issues trying to quantify science (eg using citation counts) - and of course this paper uses metrics to try and show metrics based science is flawed. It couldn't be any other way, of course - nobody would accept what they're arguing without data. My favourite example of how "high impact" science isn't recognised by citations are genome mappers/aligners, building blocks for pretty much all modern high throughput sequencing. The 2 most popular alignment tools are BWA with 30,868 citations, and Bowtie with 12,810 citations are implementations of the Burrows Wheeler Transform, and have it in their names. They are excellent tools and implementations but in terms of novelty, the first to apply the BW transform to genomes was "Space-efficient whole genome comparisons with Burrows–Wheeler transforms", RA Lippert 2005 Both BWA and Bowtie cite Lippert, making up 2 of Lippert 2005s 53 citations.