This commentary raises significant cautions related to inherent shortcomings in the use of bibliographic analytic technology, and in particular its use in substantive decision making around promotion and tenure. Questions are raised concerning the continued use of scholarly energy for bibliometric analysis of subtly different settings. The recommendation is offered that future efforts in bibliometrics must target methods to reduce methodological shortcomings. These include clarifying the metric used to count sole/multiple authorship, and to evaluate the"merit" of manuscripts as well as journals in which they appear. Finally, the fundamental meaning of the information produced in these analyses (i.e., the validity of the measure) must be clearly presented in order for it to be credibly used.