Comments on the ideological and philosophical foundations of bibliometrics by Gorraiz, J.

• Critically challenges Gorraiz’s metaphorical framing of bibliometrics for neglecting empirical validation and operational applicability. • Demonstrates that citation metrics, when properly calibrated, have strong predictive validity—e.g., Clarivate’s Citation Laureates correctly anticipating 89 Nobel Prize winners. • Highlights economic and logistical advantages of bibliometrics over costly peer review systems such as the UK REF, which exceeds £250 million per cycle. • Uses the Portuguese case to reveal persistent reliance on quantitative heuristics even in formally metric-free assessments, exposing a gap between policy and practice. Juan Gorraiz’s (2025) paper presents a metaphorical and conceptually rich examination of the ideological and philosophical foundations of bibliometrics, emphasizing their symbolic, heuristic, and interpretive roles in scholarly communication. While aligned with responsible research assessment initiatives such as DORA and the Leiden Manifesto, the paper lacks practical guidance, operational frameworks, and empirical evidence. Studies show that well-calibrated citation metrics are cost-efficient, predictive, and can complement peer review. Portuguese research assessments reveal that experts rely implicitly on metrics even when formally prohibited, highlighting tensions between normative principles and practice. Hybrid evaluation models that integrate bibliometrics with expert judgment better capture the multidimensional nature of scientific excellence, balancing efficiency, transparency, and ethical responsibility. Gorraiz’s work stimulates reflection but requires operational grounding to guide policy effectively.