Anchoring our science with keywords

Keywords. Not a topic that excites many readers, I imagine. But I would like to convince you that keywords are critical to advancing science and are thus quite exciting. Think of the roles that keywords play in science. Keywords place a research report in the context of a larger body of literature. Keywords tie one research report to others addressing the same and closely related topics. Evidence syntheses are built on a foundation of keywords. Every search begins with a carefully delimited set of keywords, some of which are subject headings and others are keywords determined by the investigators. In publishing, both authors and reviewers each declare keywords. Authors list them for themselves as scholars and for their manuscript. Reviewers select them to define their expertise. Editors go on to match reviewers to manuscripts and authors to journals. In short, both science and scientific literature are anchored by keywords. Great and thanks for that overview, you think. So, what more is there to say? Quite a lot, actually.

Concerningly, keywords are commonly ineffectively or inappropriately used within gerontological nursing and beyond. Keywords appear prosaic and familiar to most of us. How hard can it be, we think to ourselves, to list a few words like ‘older people’ or ‘gerontological nursing’ when submitting our manuscripts or completing our peer reviewer accounts and then tick that task off as complete. That approach typically results in imprecise and incomplete lists of keywords, often overlooking connections to subject headings. Confusion about keywords and subject headings lies at the core of where our use of keywords commonly goes wrong.

Keywords on a manuscript may include subject headings from one or more taxonomies. But not all keywords are subject headings. Some topics may be too novel or culturally specific to have amassed sufficient science and gained recognition in one or more taxonomies. Keywords, subject headings and their use are hardly a common lecture topic made clear through robust discussion. Importantly, the correct term is ‘keywords’ and not ‘key words’. Know that, if this surprises you, you are not alone. Few of us are explicitly taught about keywords in a manner that makes using them effectively easy.

Keywords are terms that describe topics represented by the content and methods used in a research project and its dissemination. They can also be applied to other types of manuscripts like commentaries and editorials. Keywords are not key or essential words used in a manuscript nor are they words simply associated with a given journal. Consequently, manuscripts submitted to this journal should not simply be identified with keywords like ‘older people’ or ‘older people nursing’ without directly studying either or both of those topics. Importantly, keywords are not structured by an organisation with formal authority to make keywords official. Rather, keywords emerge organically as authors publish their own research and read research published by others. Reading published literature is essential to accurately capturing the evolution of keywords describing a particular substantive or methodological topic. Critically, then, keywords may or may not be subject headings.

Subject headings are structured vocabulary controlled within a curated taxonomy. Individual authors cannot simply make up their own subject headings and will not know, unless they check relevant taxonomies, whether keywords that they are using are also subject headings. Taxonomies used in nursing and health sciences include the familiar like our own discipline's Cumulated Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/cinahl-database), the widely used such as the dominant Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html) and the nationally specific like the United States Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) (https://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/subject/). New subject headings emerge, typically annually, in each taxonomy through a complex process of indexing and evaluation. Take a look at the explanations for adding and editing subject headings in CINAHL (https://connect.ebsco.com/s/article/CINAHL-Subject-Headings-Frequently-Asked-Questions?language=en_US) and LCSH (https://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/subject/lcsh-process.html) to learn more. Better understanding the basics of keywords and subject headings helps us use them more effectively in our science, whatever our role—investigator, author, reviewer and editor. Such understanding should also make us grateful for our library (https://www.alise.org) and information science (https://www.asist.org/student-resources/what-is-information-science/) colleagues!

Every author is prompted to select keywords for every manuscript. Despite their ubiquity, few among us stop to consider their value as I am asking us to do here. Instead, their selection is among the first required elements of submission to a journal and one to which most give little thought. Common keywords applied to manuscripts here at the International Journal of Older People Nursing are ‘Older People’, ‘Gerontological Nursing’, ‘Older People Nursing’, ‘Long Term Care’ and ‘Care Homes’. These terms match well with the scope of this journal. Rarely, however, do they capture the specific topic of the manuscript to which they are attached. Instead, these terms capture the general domain in which the manuscript sits and nothing more. Thus, without other more specific keywords, these general keywords cannot achieve what is intended by including keywords in the first place.

Consider a hypothetical manuscript reporting a Grounded Theory study of how family caregivers experience reciprocity with those older people for whom they are caring. Selecting the keywords ‘Older People’ ‘Gerontological Nursing’ or ‘Older People Nursing’ and possibly ‘Family’ is technically correct. This research is about older people and falls within the domain of gerontological nursing. And, just by luck, gerontologic (not gerontological in CINAHL) nursing and family are both CINAHL subject headings. Unfortunately, selecting these keywords loosely associated with the topic and not at all with the methodology makes them relatively ineffective. It misses using the CINAHL subject headings Caregivers and Grounded Theory, for example. It also misses including the keyword ‘reciprocity’ or the larger CINAHL subject heading which captures reciprocity in relationships interpersonal relations. Things will go awry without subject headings and keywords that accurately and specifically convey the study's major focus being included in the list of keywords for this manuscript. Consequently, the likelihood that the editor handling this manuscript will easily identify potential reviewers for it is low.

Searching for potential peer reviewers when the only keywords attached to the manuscript are among the broadest possible is always ineffective. Editors searching databases return too many hits to use, most of which do not match the actual topic of the research report. Sometimes editors have no choice but to invite peer reviewers whose expertise may possibly fit the topic and methods of the manuscript. Unsurprisingly, that ‘shot in the dark’ approach rarely works fast or well. Delays in recruiting peer reviewers for manuscripts are commonplace today. As an editor, I am often left wondering just how much precisely chosen keywords could reduce those delays.

Like authors submitting a manuscript, reviewers are prompted to select their own keywords. And just like authors, reviewers who list just a few broad terms without adding other keywords that precisely describe their areas of expertise are faced with a dilemma. They field a glut of invitations to review but might see few invitations to review anything that matches their expertise and interests them. Today, most of us are inundated by email messages. Several messages each week are likely to be invitations from journals we know and many we do not know. Despite ideals of professional service, many of us might resort to simply ignoring or deleting those invitations without even reading them. Keywords selected with specificity cannot solve the challenge of unsolicited and unwelcome invitations to review manuscripts. Such invitations are simply part of today's scientific publishing industry. Nevertheless, well-chosen keywords can improve the match between manuscripts you are invited to review and your expertise for those journals which where you wish to serve as a reviewer.

Back to our hypothetical manuscript reporting a grounded theory of reciprocity among family caregivers caring for older people… More problems will arise should the editor be successful in finding qualified peer reviewers and the manuscript is eventually published without changes to those fundamentally inaccurate keywords. Indeed, the central challenge presented by inaccurate and imprecise keywords to scientific advancement begins once research reports are published. Research reports identified by keywords that only loosely capture the topic studied, any theory applied, and the methodology used are set adrift in global scientific literature. Without the strong ties offered by contemporary keywords and current subject headings, research reports become difficult to locate in searches conducted by other scholars. Fewer scholars are likely to cite vaguely identified research reports as their searches may not retrieve them. More critically, research reports poorly characterised by their keywords may be missed in search strings generated for evidence synthesis projects. Those broad, imprecise and inaccurate keywords like ‘Older People’ and ‘Gerontological Nursing’, especially when they are used alone, constrain the potential contribution that a single research report like this hypothetical one might make to our science more broadly. The effect might not seem big or consequential. Nonetheless, over time the effects of the constraints imposed by poorly suited keywords add up.

Our science, especially when we use qualitative methods, is often viewed as second best in a scientific world beset by biomedical hegemony. Many ponder the value of science like this hypothetical manuscript reporting a situation-specific theory (a grounded theory in this case) of a very commonplace interpersonal relationship. We, as nurses, know better. Our science explores, documents, theorises and improves so many aspects of daily life for older people, their families and their communities as well as advancing our nursing practice. We know the power of what lies beyond the biomedical for health, function and well-being across the lifespan and especially in later life. We cannot afford to limit the impact of our science by dismissing keywords as required but inconsequential. Keywords matter because they anchor our science, increasing the likelihood that others will read, use and synthesise what we find.

Going forward, the International Journal of Older People Nursing is redoubling its emphasis on keywords as an essential part of every manuscript and of every author's and reviewer's profile. We have recently overhauled our keyword list which is available here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/17483743/homepage/productinformation.html. We now request that all authors include a minimum of four—up from two—and a maximum of ten keywords when submitting a manuscript (wiley.atyponrex.com/journal/OPN). Similarly, we will soon email all reviewers to ask them to update their personal keywords. Our aim in making these changes is to better support our authors, reviewers and readers while more strongly anchoring our science. We hope you will join us in making better use of keywords. We also welcome new reviewers join us and to specify their carefully selected keywords in their Scholar One accounts. Those who are interested in becoming peer reviewers for IJOPN should email the Editorial Office ([email protected]) with an expression of interest and a brief curriculum vitae. Finally, let us all use social media to highlight our favourite keywords, subject headings and taxonomies. Tag @IntJnlOPN in your posts on X (formerly Twitter) and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/IJOPN/ and please use our signature hashtag #GeroNurses when you post about keywords and your science!