The aim of this project is to analyze the evolution of translator and interpreter training from 2001 to 2020 from a bibliometric perspective. Very few studies have employed bibliometric procedures to picture the trends and patterns emerging from publications dealing with translator and interpreter training. Historical accounts based on literature reviews have been more frequent (see, e.g., Hurtado Albir 2019; Kelly 2019; Moser-Mercer 2005; Nam 2015), but such approaches cannot offer systematic results based on large amounts of publications. Orlando (2019, 217) highlights that the differences in translator and interpreter training views and approaches are due to many variables, such as the contexts of training, the impact of technology, educational policies, and the academic and vocational ideologies of trainers. According to the author, such variables do not allow for a clear definition of specific training models, but the existing literature can be used to picture the developments and trends in this area of translation studies. We believe that bibliometrics can be of help here as it allows for systematizing large amounts of information. To the best of our knowledge, the first bibliometric study on translator and interpreter training was conducted by Yan, Pan, and Wang (2015). This article was re-published in 2018 (Yan, Pan, and Wang 2018c) in a monograph on bibliometric studies on translator and interpreter training, and therefore it will be discussed in a subsequent paragraph. Franco Aixelá (2016), who used the Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation (BITRA; Franco Aixelá 2001) as the main source of data. Franco Aixelá provided a diachronic account of the evolution of translator and interpreter training based on the almost 6,500 publications on this topic that were covered in BITRA at that time for the period comprising 1991 to 2015. His results focused on: (1) the proportion of translator and interpreter trainer in translation and interpreting studies (TIS) over time, (2) publication formats, (3) most productive and cited authors, and (4) modes and specializations for which training was proposed. Two years later, Yan, Pan, and Wang (2018c) published a volume dedicated to bibliometrics and translator and interpreter training, which contained four bibliometric-oriented studies. In the first one, Yan, Pan, and Wang (2018e) extracted 323 articles devoted to translator and interpreter training from 10 journals covering a period from 2000 to 2012. Their results focused on the evolution of the number of articles devoted to this topic, their themes (teaching, learning, and assessment), the research methods used in the studies reported, and the authorship and geographical distribution of the articles. In a second study, Yan, Pan, and Wang (2018d) extracted 284 articles devoted to translator training from 8 journals covering a period from 2000 to 2014. Here, the authors focused on the themes (teaching, learning, and assessment), sub-themes, and their continental distribution. The third study (Yan, Pan, and Wang 2018b) pursued the same aims as the previous one, but it focused in interpreter training. Here, the authors extracted 180 articles devoted to this topic from 10 journals using the same period (2000-2014). The last study by these authors (Yan, Pan, and Wang 2018a) focused on the 98 articles on translator and interpreter training published in Meta from 2000 to 2014. Here, the authors compared Meta to the other nine journals included in their first study in terms of the distribution of publications over time and that of themes and sub-themes. The last bibliometric-oriented study we were able to identify was published one year later by Sawyer, Austermühl, and Enríquez Raído (2019). The authors extracted 100 publications devoted to curriculum-related topics of translator and interpreter training from BITRA and Translation Studies Bibliography (TSB; Gambier and van Doorslaer 2021) covering a period from 2000 to 2017. They focused on the distribution of publications over time and produced word clouds based on the titles and the abstracts of the selected publications. They also investigated the types of investigations that were reported on (empirical, theoretical, or non-specified) and the level of studies (undergraduate, postgraduate, both, or non-specified). Our project aims to complement and expand the investigations carried out by Franco Aixelá, Yan, Pan, and Wang, and Sawyer, Austermühl, and Enríquez Raído, even if the specific aims (see below) and the period under study (2001-2020) differ. The specific aims of the project are the following: 1. To identify the most productive authors in translator/interpreter training from 2001 to 2020, both synchronically (for the whole period) and diachronically (in 5-year periods, i.e., 2001-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2015, and 2016-2020). 2. To identify the publications with the highest impact (i.e., citations) in translator/interpreter training from 2001 to 2020, both synchronically and diachronically. 3. To characterize translator/interpreter training publications in terms of publication format, publication language, and access type (open or toll-access) from 2001 to 2020, both synchronically and diachronically. 4. To characterize both synchronically and diachronically translator/interpreter training publications from 2001 to 2020 in relation to various aspects of their training proposals: (a) types (i.e., didactic proposal, assessment of a given proposal, etc.); (b) aspects being trained; (c) training tools used; (d) didactic methods; (e) translation/interpreting modes (i.e., written translation, consecutive interpreting, dialogic interpreting, etc.); (f) specializations (e.g., legal, scientific, etc.); (g) training levels (e.g., undergraduate, postgraduate, etc.); (h) trainees (i.e., students, professionals, etc.); (i) language pairs included in the proposal, and (j) countries in which the proposal is applied. 5. To describe how the most frequently trained aspects have been operationalized in training proposals in translator/interpreter training from 2001 to 2020. 6. To describe how the most frequently used didactic methods have been applied in translator/interpreter training from 2001 to 2020. 7. To compare the emerging patterns in translator and in interpreter training based on the bibliometric aspects covered in the previous aims. To achieve these aims, a bibliometric study has been devised using the Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation (BITRA, Franco Aixelá 2001) as the main source of bibliometric and bibliographic data. This project intends to provide a panoramic view of translator/interpreter training since the beginning of the 21st century. Dr Olalla-Soler and Dr Galán-Mañas will be in charge of the study on translator training, and Dr Olalla-Soler and Dr Spinolo will be in charge of that on interpreter training. The three authors will be in charge of the comparison between translator and interpreter training.