This is a report about the use and misuse of citation data in the assessment
of scientific research. The idea that research assessment must be done using
``simple and objective'' methods is increasingly prevalent today. The ``simple
and objective'' methods are broadly interpreted as bibliometrics, that is,
citation data and the statistics derived from them. There is a belief that
citation statistics are inherently more accurate because they substitute simple
numbers for complex judgments, and hence overcome the possible subjectivity of
peer review. But this belief is unfounded.Comment: This paper commented in: [arXiv:0910.3532], [arXiv:0910.3537],
[arXiv:0910.3543], [arXiv:0910.3546]. Rejoinder in [arXiv:0910.3548].
Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/09-STS285 the Statistical Science
(http://www.imstat.org/sts/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics
(http://www.imstat.org