This was some advice given by an editor in a writing course:

If there is a limit to the number of keywords, don’t use terms already used in the title. Rather, use terms that are complementary, synonymous, or equivalent (even “non-standard” terms) to those in the title. This will allow your paper to appear in more searches in Google Scholar and similar search engines.

Is this correct?

  • 1
    I don't know how often this is recommended, but it makes good sense. May 17 '17 at 3:10
  • 2
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because one would have to analyze the frequency with which this advice is given. Pretty impossible for us to say. May 17 '17 at 3:11
  • 5
    @aparente001: Well, you could theoretically analyse the frequency. More importantly, the answer to the question is irrelevant and what actually matters to every sane person is whether this advice is correct. As I presume the asker to be a sane person, I will just edit the question accordingly.
    – Wrzlprmft
    May 17 '17 at 7:16
  • Relevant and similar question: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49093/…
    – henning
    May 18 '17 at 8:17

Key-words are crucial for indexing, whereas the words chosen for the title and the abstract are impactful for free text searches.

For instance, you may search PubMed with key-words (using the [mh] tag), with title words (using the [ti] tag), with title or abstract words (using the [tiab] tag), and so forth.

In case you use in the title and abstract words which correspond to indexing terms, then you may find reasonable to use alternative words as key-words. However, the most important thing is to use, in at least one of the venues (key-words, title, or abstract), the accepted indexing terms.

  • Joe please roll back if my edit is not correct. May 17 '17 at 22:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.