Australian universities are increasingly resorting to the use of journal metrics such as impact factors and ranking lists in appraisal and promotion processes, and are starting to set quantitative "performance expectations" which make use of such journal-based metrics. The widespread use and misuse of research metrics is leading to increased concern in scientific and broader academic communities worldwide. This paper reviews some of the most important recent responses to the so-called "metric tide", with particular reference to the report of that name recently issued by the UK's Higher Education Funding Council for England, and other important statements such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment and the Leiden Manifesto. While there is a spectrum of views on research metrics in general, there is widespread agreement from authoritative sources that it is not appropriate to rely on journal-level metrics, such as journal ranking lists, for assessing the merit of individual scholars.