Academics are judged on stupid factors depending on the quantity of publications and citations rather than on the quality of their research.
The idea of bibliometrics is that you can compare on a single dimension individuals who do not work on the same subject, who use different methods, who do it in different communities which have different publication habits, etc. Of course this is completely stupid.
It's like saying that a cyclist who has participated in 10 Tour de France is better than a judoka who has participated to only 3 Olympic games. Only here you also give a job and funding to do it appropriately to the cyclist and say to the judoka to go f* himself until he participates in more Tour de France.
Of course, the thing is that you can't even have good criteria, because necessarily if you give criteria they become the goal, and instead of doing good research and publishing what is necessary when and where it makes sense, academics are forced to do research and have a publication policy that satisfy the arbitrary criteria. And even if the unlikely case where the criteria match what's better, it is impossible for it to be the case in the so many different fields of research.
The only good solution would be to judge academics by the two or three most relevant publications they have on the matter of the grant or job. That would require reading the publications, and if possible the report of the peer-review process (which would be enabled by open peer review).