Author-based metrics (ABMs) and journal-based metrics (JBMs), as well as citations, are the dominant currency of intellectual recognition in academia. These metrics and citations continue to be dominated by the Clarivate Analytics Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and are still widely used as a surrogate to determine prestige, scientific credit, and influence. However, the author argues, their dominance in this area needs to be rethought, especially in China, which accounts for approximately 19 percent of total scientific research papers globally. China, like several other countries, games the JIF for financial compensation in pay-to-publish schemes based on JIF-carrying journals. The culture of metrics, especially the JIF, to measure success, reputation, and productivity, or JIF-based praise platforms such as Clarivate Analytics' "Highly Cited Researchers" report inflate the problem because they elevate the perceived excellence of single individuals above all others, when in fact most publishing success is collaborative. The survival of many academics and journals in this publish-or-perish culture depends on such metrics, as authors seek journals with higher JIFs in which to publish their findings. Since federal or public funding is often based on the ranking of journals, the abuse of ABMs and JBMs lies beyond a lack of professionalism. Not only does JBM manipulation constitute academic misconduct, there is a widening discussion about the need to criminalize journals that game their JIF.