Interpreting Bibliometric Indicators as the “Blood Tests” of Research Systems

The increasing emphasis on responsible research assessment has renewed the need for conceptual tools that help communicate the complementary roles of quantitative and qualitative evaluation. This essay proposes an interpretative metaphor that frames bibliometric indicators as the “blood tests” of research systems—heuristic devices that reveal multidimensional aspects of system vitality, balance, and dysfunction. The metaphor, grounded in standard categories of clinical diagnostics (hematological, hepatic, renal, lipidic, and cardiovascular panels), provides an accessible language for scholars and policymakers in research. Each bibliometric technique—ranging from publication and citation counts to patent analysis, altmetrics, and topic modelling—is associated with a diagnostic function such as screening, monitoring, or early risk detection. By linking established principles of responsible metrics (DORA, Leiden Manifesto, Metric Tide, CoARA) with the professionalization of evaluators, the essay situates the metaphor within current debates on bibliometric literacy and the ethical interpretation of indicators. Rather than prescribing metrics or decision rules, the contribution invites reflection on how evaluators can interpret bibliometric signals diagnostically—as contextual evidence for institutional learning, strategic decision-making, and the cultivation of healthy, adaptive research systems. Consistent with the essay format, this contribution does not propose a new evaluative methodology nor empirical validation. Instead, it advances a heuristic and communicative framework intended to emphasize the holistic, contextual, and professionally informed interpretation of quantitative indicators in the evaluation of research activity.