The widespread application of quantitative measurements in evaluating research, though very attractive for its supposed objectivity and expediency, has on the other hand given rise to an intricate web of ethical issues and biases in the system. The current review not only critiques but strategically moves through a thorough system analysis revealing the limitations of metrics and their sociotechnical implications. Our first step is to map out the ethics involved and thereby set up rules for the proper use of metrics. The next stage is to look into the bias aspect of metrics and the various forms of bias such as issues of location and language, unfairness among different fields, and the ongoing divide between the genders. The whole matter of metric malpractice—gaming, manipulation, and the detrimental over-optimization of research integrity—are some of the things that we have extensively discussed in this paper. Likewise, we have raised the emerging trend's ethical implications, namely, altmetrics, visualization, and algorithmic evaluation, taking into account their capability of both widening influence and introducing additional types of bias. Alongside this, we provide a picture of recent empirical findings about the status of research ethics and the level of support from institutions. Lastly, we bring together a progressive agenda for change, which includes institutional accountability, the shaping of reflexive evaluation methodologies, and the essential incorporation of qualitative, expert opinion. We express that a major change in mentality is necessary—one that will place metrics in a supportive role in a holistic, qualitative, and ethically-grounded research evaluation ecosystem.