For nearly a decade, several national exercises have been implemented for assessing the Italian research performance, from the viewpoint of universities and other research institutions. The penultimate one – i.e., the VQR 2004–2010, which adopted a hybrid evaluation approach based on bibliometric analysis and peer review – suffered heavy criticism at a national and international level. The architecture of the subsequent exercise – i.e., the VQR 2011–2014, still in progress – is partly similar to that of the previous one, except for a few presumed improvements. Nevertheless, this other exercise is suffering heavy criticism too. This paper presents a structured discussion of the VQR 2011–2014, collecting and organizing some critical arguments so far emerged, and developing them in detail. Some of the major vulnerabilities of the VQR 2011–2014 are: (1) the fact that evaluations cover a relatively small fraction of the scientific publications produced by the researchers involved in the evaluation, (2) incorrect and anachronistic use of the journal metrics (i.e., ISI Impact Factor and similar ones) for assessing individual papers, and (3) conceptually misleading criteria for normalizing and aggregating the bibliometric indicators in use.