An example from this journal illustrates the point. Our third most highly cited paper in 2007, with 272 citations at the time of inspection, was of a pilot study in screening for functional elements of the human genome. The importance lay primarily in the technique. In contrast, a paper from the same year revealing key biological insights into the workings of a proton pump, which moves protons across cell membranes, had received 10 citations.
E. J. Rinia（Res. Policy 27, 95–107; 1998）によれば、論文の引用数に重点をおいた数値化した評価法（マトリックス法）とエキスパートによるピアレビューを比較検討したところ5000の論文のうち２５％で２つの評価法の乖離が見られ、その半分ではエキスパートが価値ありと評価した論文が、マトリックス法では価値なしという評価結果になっているようです。
The study found disagreements in judgement between the two methods of evaluation in 25% of the 5,000 papers examined. In roughly half of these cases, the experts found a paper to be of interest when the metrics did not, and in the other half, the opposite was the case. The reasons for the differences are not fully understood.