Rehabilitation science, encompassing occupational therapy, physical and rehabilitation medicine, geriatric care, and allied health disciplines, has evolved into a deeply interdisciplinary and evidence driven domain. Alongside this evolution, the systems used to evaluate, disseminate, and validate scientific knowledge have also transformed, moving from print based citation indexes to complex digital bibliometric and webometric ecosystems. This article develops a comprehensive, theory rich, and empirically grounded analysis of how bibliometric, informetric, and webometric frameworks shape the production, visibility, and perceived value of rehabilitation research. Drawing strictly from the provided corpus of authoritative references, this study integrates insights from occupational therapy scholarship, medical trial reporting, and information science to demonstrate how research impact is constructed rather than merely measured. Classical foundations of informetrics and bibliometrics, as articulated by Blackert and Siegel, Garfield, and Bellis, are connected to modern citation based evaluations and journal metrics discussed by Brown, Gutman, Corr and colleagues, and Belter. These measurement systems are then contextualized within the real world epistemic demands of rehabilitation research, as illustrated by seminal clinical and methodological works such as Andrews et al. on misdiagnosis of vegetative state, Close et al. on fall prevention, and Higginson et al. on integrated palliative and respiratory care. By weaving together these literatures, the article demonstrates that bibliometric indicators do not simply reflect quality or utility but actively shape research agendas, editorial priorities, professional hierarchies, and even clinical knowledge pathways. The methodological section explains how citation analysis, core journal identification, keyword indexing, and webometric mapping are applied to rehabilitation science, drawing particularly on the analytical frameworks developed by Ho and colleagues, Franchignoni and Munoz Lasa, and Almind and Ingwersen. The results section presents a detailed descriptive synthesis showing how occupational therapy and rehabilitation journals are positioned within broader scientific ecosystems, how impact factors and alternative metrics influence professional legitimacy, and how clinical trials achieve symbolic authority through publication channels. The discussion critically examines the limitations, biases, and ethical implications of relying on quantitative indicators in fields where patient centered outcomes, qualitative insights, and long term care trajectories are central. The article concludes by arguing for a reflexive, pluralistic approach to research evaluation in rehabilitation science, one that integrates bibliometric rigor with epistemological humility and clinical relevance.