ABSTRACT. Gami et al. observe that author self-citations may misrepresent the importance of individual articles, skew the calculation of journal impact factors and bias perceptions of the importance of a publication. Kurmis contend that direct comparison between journals on the basis of the total number of citations alone is influenced by a number of factors, such as journal format and content, appropriateness of article classification, and discipline-specific citation tendencies. Pöschl and Koop point out that collaborative peer review facilitates and enhances quality assurance. Grazia Ietto-Gillies observes that we need a system for evaluating the worth of a work and for assessing whether it is good enough to be put into the public domain.