Keywords are life!

Scientific keywords may be messy, but to save us there are MeSH... 😜

Make your paper frontpage news! 

The scientific paper is the most publicly scrutinised and main academic outcome of a study. It takes a while to get right, a long time to draft, and years to gather data. 

After all that, it's sometimes difficult to answer:

  • What did you set out to discover?
  • How did you do it?
  • What did you actually find?

If there is are a couple of scientific terms that keep popping up in the answers to these questions, then they are your keywords. These are commonly used, yet specific terms.


Now, we should assess how relevant these are to your own work.

MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) is a thesaurus used for indexing, cataloging, and searching of biomedical and health-related information. It is continually updated, controlled, and hierarchical.

MeSH on Demand allows you to upload a text and have it automatically processed so that MeSH terms will be highlighted and linked terms that are broader in scope will be suggested.

Repeat your keywords in the title, abstract, and throughout your article. Be consistent with your field. Link to your article across your social media. And repeat. Repeat a lot.

And why is this important, you may ask?

Because more than half of all traffic to major publishers' online library comes directly from search engines. And search engine algorithms favour content identified as being of linguistic high quality, original, and relevant to the user’s search.

So, if you want to be cited by people everywhere... get your paper to appear on the first landing page. 

Make your paper frontpage news!  

Discover Storytelling for Science!

Comments

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

How to spot fake reviewers: a beginner's guide

Image
For those unfamiliar with or new to academic publishing, peer review manipulation is hard to spot. This is mainly because most peer review reports are still confidential documents that stay buried deep in academic journal's editorial offices. As long as this continues to be the default, recognising good and bad peer reviews is difficult enough... now we have to worry about fake peer review as well?! 😒 Well, yes. Yes, we do. The peer review process in academic publishing is unlike any other. The style and content of a manuscript are criticized, as are the thought processes that birthed it. Everything from word choice to significance of the research focus is under scrutiny. In traditional peer review formats, reviewers recommend that manuscripts be accepted or rejected. This much power may make some less scrupulous people guiddy... or yearning to rig the system. The refereeing work that is supposed to be one of the garantors of research integrity is itself highly susceptible to ma
Read more

Auditing published papers (part I)

Image
After they have been published, I audit research papers.  Image by @freepik Why? How does that work? 😕 A new revised version of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) has been produced by Allea , and recognised by the European Commission, one of the world's largest research funding bodies. This revision focuses on a heightened awareness of issues pertaining to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion ( EDI ), but also the General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ), and even Open Science . I know.. too much legal speak, too many acronyms... 😬 So, let me sum it up for you. 🔊 All institutions, organizations, and individuals that engage in or interact with research must always abide by the principles of: Honesty Respect   Reliability   Accountability  Simple enough, right? Humm.. I analyse papers that have been flagged as "of concern". 😟 The issues I most commonly see have to do with lack of funding or data availability statements, inappropriate citati
Read more

IMHO: why open science should adopt double anonymous peer review

Image
Let's get opinionated... Peer review is still the cornerstone of quality research. This has been repeated by so many during #PeerReviewWeek2023 , it almost lost its meaning to me. I participated in this conversation wholeheartedly, as a freelancer with a variety of roles, from content review to integrity audits.  I’m no longer in academia, but I did my stint there: it’s hard to imagine that many PhD students and postdocs get excited by performing their first peer review. It often results from an invitation trickle-down and, although it can be regarded as a learning opportunity, peer review is hard, time-consuming, unpaid, and often unrecognized work. Open participation is often regarded by researchers as the fairer, more constructive and productive process, leading to improvement in the quality of the finished version of the works. This is the iterative version of having a preprint published in a stable server, with access to all versions of the work, and “comments on”.   The
Read more