Having been personally involved in several examinations of productivity in various sub-disciplines of psychology, I read with great interest the articles in this special issue. I commend the authors for engaging in this activity, as I feel that a field benefits from occasional self-examinations. In this commentary, I caution against placing too much emphasis on impact factors, arguing that they are not measured without error and unethical behaviors could increase if they are weighted too heavily. I recommend examinations of methodological trends, whether implications for practice are based on observational data, whether female participation in the publication process matches their participation as members of the field, and finally including other characteristics in defining highly productive scholars that would attract potential graduate students.