Normative databases of word properties are a fundamental resource in experimental psycholinguistics, enabling control of lexical variables and comparability across studies. However, the methodological practices used to construct these resources remain heterogeneous, limiting their reproducibility and cumulative value. In this methodological study, we examine how subjective word experience has been operationalized, using familiarity and subjective frequency norms as a test case to evaluate broader practices in word norming research. We systematically reviewed 61 studies across 15 languages, analyzing operational definitions, rating instructions, participant samples, data cleaning procedures, psychometric validation, and data accessibility. Our analysis reveals substantial conceptual and methodological inconsistencies. In particular, “familiarity” is frequently used as a label for distinct constructs, including subjective encounter frequency, conceptual knowledge, or hybrid judgments. Beyond these conceptual issues, we identify structural limitations affecting the robustness and representativeness of existing norms, including reliance on student samples, uneven cross-linguistic coverage, incomplete methodological reporting, and limited data accessibility. At the same time, recent studies show improvements in methodological rigor, reliability assessment, and open science practices. Building on these findings, we propose evidence-based recommendations and a practical checklist to improve transparency, comparability, and inclusiveness in word norming research. We further introduce a scalable framework for future norm development that integrates AI-generated estimates with targeted human validation, enabling broader lexical coverage while maintaining theoretical interpretability. These contributions provide a foundation for improving the development, evaluation, and integration of word norming resources in a more cumulative and reproducible framework.