International Bibliographic Indexes (IBIs) like Science Citation Index and Scopus have played an important role in the field of science. However, IBIs increased use has been controversial and has raised positive and negative standpoints regarding their use as objective tools to represent and track the state of science. This has led to the emergence of deep tensions between both sides, expressed in oppositions like: IBIs are/are not objective, scientific, and universal. However, it is paradoxical that both sides are presented as mutually exclusive when all their complaints consider aspects that coexist in the communication process. We present evidences of this coexistence. In our approach, research papers are conceived as a techno-scientific object in the context of actor-network theory and metaphor tracking: optical, industrial, and associative, to analyze scientific communication networks. The aim of this study is twofold: first, we propose three networks to track scientific communication: manifest, underlying, and associative, to reconsider both positive and negative allegations about IBIs. Secondly, we encourage to rethink the opposition, starting from a more relational approach rather than an essentialist one to the process of scientific communication.