Thank you Laszlo, I'm adding it to the list! Andrea

Nice article! Let me add one consideration. Marriages, arranged or otherwise, are not judged by peer review experts. When husband and wife sign a letter or a postcard it is immaterial whose name comes first. Not so in collaboration papers. Competitive access to research funding and publish or perish politics may kill collaborations.

As a post scriptum to this article I remark that Nature has published  the commentary: "Italian scientists increase self-citations in response to promotion policy. Study reveals how research evaluations can lead to self-serving behaviour." by Dalmeet Singh Chawla. link: https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/italian-scientists-increase-self-citations-in-response-to-promotion-policy

I do not have a solution, aside from what I wrote in the post. Clearly we should first decide which is the scope of evaluation: allocating funds? promoting a scientist's career? awarding a position? Evaluation should be limited at those instances where it is really needed. A wrong use of evaluation is that of justifying  reduction of resources: i.e. we have less thus we adopt stricter rules.