This editorial by John Hulland provides guidelines for researchers on how to effectively use bibliometric tools in crafting reviews. The aim is to help researchers avoid submissions that are well-conducted but lack novel insights, which are often desk-rejected. The editorial outlines three key steps: 1. **Establishing Aims for the Review**: Researchers must clearly define their objectives and ensure that the chosen bibliometric analyses align with these aims. Novel and meaningful insights are crucial for the review's impact. 2. **Selecting Appropriate Bibliometric Tools**: Researchers should choose tools that best fit their specific aims. Performance analysis is suitable for sociological foundations, while science mapping is better for revealing the structure and dynamics of scientific fields. Combining multiple techniques can enhance the depth and breadth of the review. 3. **Combining Approaches for Impact**: Bibliometric methods should complement traditional systematic review approaches. They can facilitate a more complete understanding of the existing literature and reveal novel insights, guiding future research. The editorial emphasizes that while bibliometric techniques offer new opportunities, their mindless application can lead to superficial results. Researchers must invest significant cognitive effort in interpreting preliminary findings to avoid desk rejections and create a prioritized agenda for future research.This editorial by John Hulland provides guidelines for researchers on how to effectively use bibliometric tools in crafting reviews. The aim is to help researchers avoid submissions that are well-conducted but lack novel insights, which are often desk-rejected. The editorial outlines three key steps: 1. **Establishing Aims for the Review**: Researchers must clearly define their objectives and ensure that the chosen bibliometric analyses align with these aims. Novel and meaningful insights are crucial for the review's impact. 2. **Selecting Appropriate Bibliometric Tools**: Researchers should choose tools that best fit their specific aims. Performance analysis is suitable for sociological foundations, while science mapping is better for revealing the structure and dynamics of scientific fields. Combining multiple techniques can enhance the depth and breadth of the review. 3. **Combining Approaches for Impact**: Bibliometric methods should complement traditional systematic review approaches. They can facilitate a more complete understanding of the existing literature and reveal novel insights, guiding future research. The editorial emphasizes that while bibliometric techniques offer new opportunities, their mindless application can lead to superficial results. Researchers must invest significant cognitive effort in interpreting preliminary findings to avoid desk rejections and create a prioritized agenda for future research.