Handpicked Moments from the Annual LIS-Bibliometrics 2025 Conference

Ieva Litvinavičienė is a Data Analyst at Vilnius University Library. In this post, she summarises her experience at the LIS-Bibliometrics 2025 conference, held on the 26th of November 2025. The event brought together a vibrant community of bibliometrics researchers and practitioners for a day of insightful discussions and knowledge sharing. Thanks to the Travel Scholarship 2025, Ieva was able to attend in person and now reflects on the moments and learnings from the conference.

If you missed your chance to join LIS-Bibliometrics 2025, the annual conference for library and information professionals, researchers, and practitioners working with bibliometrics and research evaluation, I have something to share with you. If you have participated in the conference (in person or virtually) I also have something to share with you. And, yes, these are my personal handpicked moments from the event.

Decisions matter, and the reasoning behind them even more. Much like Alice in Wonderland, who once asked, "Where does this path lead?" and was reminded, "That depends on where you want to go," our choices follow the same principle: only by knowing our destination can we choose the right path. What do I mean by this? The theme of the conference was Bibliometrics in Action.  All three keynote speakers offered focused and thoughtful perspectives on how we can pursue our goals in different ways while staying purposeful and aligned with real needs. In many ways, action was the lighthouse guiding the entire programme.

The first keynote speaker, Dr Leslie D McIntosh, began her talk by introducing herself and immediately posed the question: "Why should you care, and why should you believe who I am?" This was the first call for action, a reminder to reflect on the often-unquestioned reasons behind trust. In the context of open science, it is crucial to consider who holds the authority to speak and be trusted. Questioning and critical thinking are essential and should never be overlooked. Throughout her presentation, Dr McIntosh used a vivid water metaphor: open science is like water. It is not always meant for drinking, sometimes it is meant for swimming. When a participant asked at which stage of the publication life cycle scientometrics should be applied, she replied that it should be present at every stage, again turning to the water analogy: if you have a pond, birds gather, and the water becomes dirty; it requires constant care.

Amelie Church from Sorbonne University shared the institution's major decisions, the reasons behind them, and the direction they are taking. Sorbonne University unsubscribed from Web of Science and withdrew from the Times Higher Education rankings, noting that such rankings do not provide a clear or meaningful picture of a university. This prompted an important question: what criteria should we truly want to be evaluated on? Their focus shifted toward a strong open science policy, encouraged by national government initiatives. Although the transition required significant preparation and effort, it was a change the university genuinely sought. This perspective offered a compelling example of how institutions can redefine their direction and this is an inspiring illustration of Bibliometrics in Action. This highlights how strategic choices can reshape not only evaluation practices but also the values that guide academic communities.

In the third keynote session, Dr Juan Gorraiz from the University of Vienna explored numerous current issues in bibliometrics. What stood out to me most was his reminder, of course, based on practical experience about what truly matters when conducting bibliometric analyses. He emphasized the importance of using diverse sources to gain broader context, combining traditional databases with information from open access data sources, and tailoring each analysis to specific objectives and audiences. Although bibliometric analyses may look similar, a one‑size‑fits‑all template is not an option. Each analysis is unique and requires thoughtful adaptation, adjustment, and refinement. Another key takeaway was that bibliometrics offers a valuable opportunity to strengthen academic libraries by enabling them to deliver innovative, high‑value, and customized services.

During the conference, there was an opportunity to listen to other interesting presentations about topics relevant to bibliometrics and practical examples. Onsite participants also took part in a workshop led by Barbara S. Lancho Barrantes (University of Brighton), where we discussed how to strengthen research integrity through bibliometric skills. One example that struck me most showed how a single character can change everything: http ≠ https. The journal Jökull had a predatory duplicate version, and the only difference between the legitimate and hijacked websites was the missing s in "https". The predatory version even appeared first in Google search results. This case demonstrated why attention to detail, regular fact‑checking, and strong bibliometric skills are essential for avoiding misleading or harmful situations. It also reminded us that such skills must be continuously updated, and our vigilance strengthened through shared knowledge and community practice. Ultimately, this experience highlighted why thoughtful, hands-on bibliometric work is crucial for building a trustworthy research environment, just as the ongoing exchange of insights within the bibliometrics community plays a vital role.

I will not end with conclusions here. I invite you to take action. If you are unsure where to begin, start by forming your own impression of the conference. Revisit the materials, identify the insights that feel most useful for your work, and let one of them shape your next step.

Unless it states other wise, the content of the Bibliomagician is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.