Tatyana A. Baraboshkina

The article conceptualizes bibliometrics as an economic activity and as a management tool in science, linking indicator-based governance with broader scientometric practices. It contrasts two perspectives: a Western, metrics-driven model focused on efficiency and performance, and an Eastern, truth-seeking tradition grounded in cultural and philosophical views of knowledge. Methodologically, the study combines a historical analysis of bibliometrics’ evolution with an examination of RSCI (RINC), Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar data, alongside the analytical capabilities of the ISTINA information system. The paper shows how bibliometrics has matured into scientometrics that shapes funding allocation, staffing, and university strategies through global rankings (QS, THE, ARWU), international student flows, and associated revenues. It also outlines the economics of scholarly publishing (subscription bundles, open access, APCs, transformative agreements) and their implications for institutional decision-making. Focusing on Oriental and broader humanities fields, the study highlights long citation windows, undercount risks due to metadata inconsistencies and footnote practices, and the comparative advantages of Google Scholar for capturing citations. As an applied case, the paper discusses the RSCI dynamics (2017–2024) of Lomonosov Moscow University Bulletin. Series 13: Oriental Studies and derives editorial policy insights. A practical toolkit is proposed to improve visibility and measurement accuracy: content internationalization, harmonized metadata and persistent author identifiers (ORCID, ResearcherID, Scopus Author ID, IRID), English titles and abstracts, and targeted author training on citation standards. The article concludes that indicators should remain instruments for transparent, cost-effective research governance rather than ends in themselves, preserving the substantive value of scholarship—particularly in the humanities and Oriental studies.