Research evaluation has traditionally relied on peer review, which, in the light of limited resources and increased bureaucratization of science, is getting increasingly replaced by quantitative metrics. Developed in the 1960s, the journal impact factor has become powerful enough to affect tenure and promotion decisions and in some countries even determines financial rewards. Regardless of its many flaws as a journal metric, the impact factor is misused as a predictor of citations on the article and author level. The h-index, introduced as one simple number to capture both output and impact, has enjoyed similar popularity due to its simplicity and easy availability on platforms such as Google Scholar or Web of Science. University rankings such as the Times Higher Education or Shanghai rankings reduce the complexity and multidimensionality of research impact into simple indicators. This talk will address the misuse of metrics in research evaluation and discuss various adverse effects of bibliometrics on scholarly communication. It will introduce novel methods to limit this misuse and increase metrics literacy in the scientific community.