This paper advances the debate on scholarly publishing and the role of bibliometric indices in evaluating authors and their research, through a theoretical discussion and an empirical case study focused on economics and the impact factor. The rationale of the current bibliometric system is that reputation, assessed by citation figures, can be converted into an objective measure. We instead argue that it provides questionable results, because it fails to properly consider the meaning of indicators built for different purposes, as well as the psychological bias generated by the wrong interpretation of those indicators. However, the potential for abating these distortions exists.