In his Editorial ‘Measuring success’ in the April issue of EMBO Reports (9, 301; 2008), Frank Gannon looks at the pluses and minuses of metrics used to measure the success of scientists, their institutions and whole nations. He writes: “Notwithstanding the imperfection of the metrics, the resulting league tables are having real effects: university presidents world-wide await with trepidation the outcome of the latest scores. They know that it is easier to attract staff to a university that is moving up the ranking tables and this, inevitably, is leading to policy changes. Research areas that contribute little to the overall ranking might be closed and the appointments of new faculty members will reflect, to some extent, their potential to contribute to the university’s metric success. Perversely, universities are entering a time of greater competition when co-operation might in fact be more appropriate. Governments also watch what is happening in the league tables, which translates into funding decisions. In this way, the power of the tables becomes amplified—although in keeping with the maxim quoted at the beginning of this article, such measurements will probably improve research in the long run because they stimulate competition. Often an external wake-up call is needed to end complacency and instigate much needed changes.”