This editorial discusses the use of bibliometric methods in reviewing research domains, emphasizing the need for meaningful insights rather than just descriptive data. It outlines three key steps for researchers: establishing clear aims for the review, selecting appropriate bibliometric analyses that align with the review objectives, and combining these with traditional systematic review approaches to generate novel insights. The editorial highlights the importance of distinguishing between performance analysis and science mapping, with the former focusing on individual and institutional performance, and the latter on the structure and dynamics of scientific fields. It also suggests that for reviews aiming to describe the sociological foundations of a field, performance analysis is appropriate, while science mapping is more suitable for journals focused on novel intellectual contributions. The editorial provides examples of common bibliometric techniques and emphasizes the value of combining these with traditional methods to achieve deeper understanding and meaningful insights. It concludes by stressing the importance of careful interpretation of bibliometric findings to ensure they contribute to the ongoing scholarly conversation rather than being superficial or uninformative.This editorial discusses the use of bibliometric methods in reviewing research domains, emphasizing the need for meaningful insights rather than just descriptive data. It outlines three key steps for researchers: establishing clear aims for the review, selecting appropriate bibliometric analyses that align with the review objectives, and combining these with traditional systematic review approaches to generate novel insights. The editorial highlights the importance of distinguishing between performance analysis and science mapping, with the former focusing on individual and institutional performance, and the latter on the structure and dynamics of scientific fields. It also suggests that for reviews aiming to describe the sociological foundations of a field, performance analysis is appropriate, while science mapping is more suitable for journals focused on novel intellectual contributions. The editorial provides examples of common bibliometric techniques and emphasizes the value of combining these with traditional methods to achieve deeper understanding and meaningful insights. It concludes by stressing the importance of careful interpretation of bibliometric findings to ensure they contribute to the ongoing scholarly conversation rather than being superficial or uninformative.