This letter responds to Haunschild and Bornmann article, published in the Journal of Informetrics, that proposes a bibliometric framework for identifying promising early-career scientists based on three indicators: the number of publications in high-impact journals, total publication output, and corresponding authorship. Using these metrics, the authors compile a dataset of 46,200 individuals classified as “potentially talented,” which they suggest could support peer review and possibly inform hiring decisions. While the objective of identifying emerging scientific talent is legitimate, the methodological assumptions underlying this approach raise significant conceptual, empirical, and ethical concerns. This commentary critically examines the reliance on publication counts and journal prestige as proxies for scientific ability and future impact. Drawing on existing research on research assessment, it highlights well-known limitations of journal impact factors, including their inability to measure the quality of individual contributions and their susceptibility to ecological fallacies. Empirical evidence suggesting that high-impact journals may also exhibit higher rates of retractions due to misconduct further complicates their use as indicators of excellence. The analysis also discusses broader systemic consequences of metric-driven evaluation, including incentives for excessive publication output, the proliferation of hyperprolific authorship, and the potential reinforcement of structural inequalities in the global research system.