In this paper I discuss the relation between widely used “Scientometric” measures and “reputation” of research groups within
the scientific community. To this goal, I present the result of the detailed comparison of two research groups of theoretical
astrophysics in post-world-war-2nd Japan. Though one of the two groups gained much higher reputation within the research community,
we could not find much difference in the macroscopic indices such as the number of publications or the average citation index.
The two groups showed similar scores for these macroscopic indices. This result suggests that widely used quantitative measures
of the productivity do not give meaningful measure for the actual contribution of a research group to science.