THERE is a heated debate in academia on the need for high-quality research papers instead of focusing on the quantity. As things stand, we rely purely on the ‘number of publications’ to appoint or promote researchers in both teaching and administrative domains. On April 23, Prof Roland Seifert of the Institute of Pharmacology at Hannover Medical School, Germany, published an insightful paper in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology, an academic journal. Interestingly, he is the editor-in-chief of the journal. The paper compared the research performance of Nobel Prize winners in physiology, medicine, and chemistry using about six indicators. The work is comm-endable because it shows that, despite the global prestige of the Nobel Prize, it is still possible to professionally analyse and discuss the quality of research of these laureates. Evaluating an author’s research output is a complex task that requires the use of multiple indicators. Our research group published such pieces in various journals, like Current Problems in Cardiology and the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, to name a few. In fact, we also submitted a series of recommendations to the same journal, suggesting the use of various indicators to assess the research performance of any author, including Nobel laureates. Our suggestions were accepted by Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology on Nov 18. This rational approach of using multiple performance measures is important and can also be applied to decisions about high-level academic appointments, such as vice-chancellors, deans, and other leadership positions. Unfortunately, in several cases, the ‘number of publications’ is the only factor that is considered, with little to no attention given to other critical indicators.