This letter responds to Victoria Slepykh’s study on academic inbreeding and early-career productivity, acknowledging its empirical rigor while questioning its central methodological premise: the use of publication counts as the primary proxy for scientific productivity. Although such metrics are appealing for their clarity and comparability, they risk conflating quantity with quality and scientific impact, thereby obscuring the multiple and severe risks associated with academic inbreeding, particularly those affecting institutional integrity. The case of Portugal, where academic inbreeding rates approach 70%, is used to illustrate that high publication output can coexist with comparatively modest levels of international scientific distinction.