Several academic institutions in the Netherlands and elsewhere develop indices to rank their scientists which will impact evaluation and steering of research. An important part of these indices is based on bibliometric indices. The development of such ranking indices is often seen as the prerogative of management and is kept out of the process where scientific instruments should be presented and evaluated: peer-reviewed journals. In this case the index of the author’s institution is criticised both for the evasion of discussion as for the lack of compensation for bias related to discipline, gender and personal history. Furthermore, it is argued that the ranking based on ‘numbers’ rather than scientific contributions is detrimental to the motivation of the staff suffering under the several modi of bias, is counterproductive for interdisciplinary achievements and discourages young researchers in less scoring disciplines to find their way in the medical academic arena. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:319-22).