INDEXING and the importance of Key Words

Editors of professional journals often demand that authors or indexers assign key words to articles. Key words are usually taken from a thesaurus. Key words are usually “assigned” to articles to ensure consistency and uniformity, and to improve retrieval whether on-line or paper-based indexes in books etc.

Where there are multiple authors in a book, key words can be quite critical since each author can “coin” words and use synonyms in their writing. This can lead to confusion not only for the reader but especially for the indexer trying to organize and bring together the ideas of multiple authors into a common index.

Key words are found not just in titles and the text, but sometimes in abstracts that accompany articles. Key words are often selected by authors or indexers, and are then supplemented with other terms that the indexer identifies in the text. Studies have shown that retrieval / searching is enhanced by the use of key words in addition to terms found in the text. For well developed subject areas such as medicine and law, a thesaurus is generally used to determine the key words, to enhance search/retrieval, and to structure the text into indexes.

Clive Pyne has a warm disposition; a sense of humour; a real commitment to getting work done correctly and on time. He is a good communicator, self-starting, thorough, reliable and will do whatever it takes to get the job done on time and on budget. He provides the highest level of professional support, coordination, and project management.

While I have not used it, I understand that the legal thesaurus most often used in law is Burton’s Legal Thesaurus / William C. Burton 3rd ed. New York : Macmillan Library Reference, c1998.

There is however some debate on whether Burton’s Legal Thesaurus is as effective as The Legal Taxonomy from Sweet & Maxwell. It is argued that The Legal Taxonomy covers subjects more broadly, thereby reflecting terms found in major textbooks; it is better able to meet the demands of detailed indexing of know-how documents; has a “better” standard structure which aids the indexer in choosing key words consistently and appropriately; and is better for search and retrieval. A comparison of the two approaches reveals major differences in the hierarchical structures and how terms are gathered under subjects. There seems to be greater detail in the Legal Taxonomy.

An argument has been made that The Legal Thesaurus structure was created by grouping terms according to their association with one another, and that this reflects a subjective viewpoint with all kinds of assumptions, leading to lack of consistency by users/indexers. On the other hand, it is argued that the Legal Taxonomy has a “logical’ structure that enables a term to appear under as many subjects as needed; it groups characteristics by bringing similar terms together which would otherwise be scattered (by association) in Burton’s Legal Thesaurus. Rather than having associations predetermined (Burton’s Legal Thesaurus), the consistency of Legal Taxonomy enables users to make their own associations. Search/retrieval is apparently better if Legal Taxonomy is used.

Since I have used neither Burton’s Legal Thesaurus nor the Legal Taxonomy, I can not from a practical user’s perspective, say which is in fact “better”. But a brief examination of an illustration comparing the two options has me favouring the Legal Taxonomy approach.

Experience with Key Words

When I index a book I request that the author provide me with a short list of about 10-14 terms. I do this for several reasons. The author is more likely to be satisfied with an index knowing that I have ensured that specific concepts are covered off. Secondly it serves as a framework around which to index and I then expand the index with additional terms. The author is a “subject” expert and is closer than I am to terms used in his field. He is more likely to identify key words for search and retrieval.

Specific examples where I used key words can be seen in the indexes for two academic books:
The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship. Willinsky, John, The MIT Press, 2005
Petroleum Resources and Reservoirs of the Grand Banks, Eastern Canadian Margin. Edited by Dr. Richard N. Hiscott and Dr. Andrew J. Pulham., Geological Association of Canada, 2005

Clive Pyne Book Indexing Services
38 Inglewood Place
Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4C7
(613) 722-7998
cpyne@magma.ca
http://cpynebookindexing.com

Don't just bookmark the web pages important to you, Turn them into SweetHeart Links that TELL you every time one of them has been updated. ANY page on the web, and as many pages as you want to keep track of can be added. Click HERE for more information on this FREE service.

No advice on this site should be used
without first contacting a professional in that field.