Scientific publishing is a huge money-making machine as well as commercial scientific metrics tools are, like citation databases Web of Science and Scopus. Despite a lot of critics for the lack of transparency and precision, they are still prestigious for use by most of university libraries and are presented by themselves as marks of quality, exclusivity and elitism. Companies selling these products and so-called "impact factor" can charge a library over 100,000$ annually (!) and still cannot provide the whole view on the impact of a certain scientific article, as they cover only a limited number of scientific journals. In order to understand why those databases are closed and toxic in the view of prohibiting the development of open digital scientific infrastructure, we invited to discuss science metrics, impact factor and backstage of scientific publishing with German American co-founder and CEO of ScienceOpen, Stephanie Dawson.