Thanks for this – your point about choosing “Goldilocks” search terms really stood out. One challenge I’ve encountered is how quickly terminology shifts over time, which can cause even well-chosen terms to underperform in the long run. There’s some recent work suggesting that incorporating citation network analysis (e.g., using tools like Connected Papers or Litmaps) can help identify emerging clusters of related research that keyword-based searches might miss.
In my own reviews, I’ve found two strategies helpful: (1) combining PubMed’s My NCBI alerts with citation alerts for key papers to catch both direct hits and lateral developments, and (2) using a reference manager that supports tagging and notes to track how concepts evolve over time.
Would be keen to hear if others have different strategies for spotting shifting language in a field!
Yeah I tried Connected Papers, as well das Research Rabbit, but somehow they never turn out to be super helpful. Do you have a specific strategy when you use them?
Could you elaborate what you mean with 2) ? What reference manager are you using?
Yeah, I’ve had mixed results too. I find tools like Connected Papers or ResearchRabbit most useful when I’m exploring a loosely defined area – like when I was looking at how “burnout” and “compassion fatigue” are used across occupational health and mental health literature. I usually start with a solid anchor paper and follow citation paths out from there to spot newer or adjacent work I might miss with keyword searches alone.
Re: reference managers – I use Zotero, mainly because it makes tagging easy. I’ll tag papers with terms like “job strain” or “occupational stress” and leave quick notes on definitions or measurement tools. It helps when trying to map how constructs shift or get re-labelled over time.
Thanks for this – your point about choosing “Goldilocks” search terms really stood out. One challenge I’ve encountered is how quickly terminology shifts over time, which can cause even well-chosen terms to underperform in the long run. There’s some recent work suggesting that incorporating citation network analysis (e.g., using tools like Connected Papers or Litmaps) can help identify emerging clusters of related research that keyword-based searches might miss.
In my own reviews, I’ve found two strategies helpful: (1) combining PubMed’s My NCBI alerts with citation alerts for key papers to catch both direct hits and lateral developments, and (2) using a reference manager that supports tagging and notes to track how concepts evolve over time.
Would be keen to hear if others have different strategies for spotting shifting language in a field!
Yeah I tried Connected Papers, as well das Research Rabbit, but somehow they never turn out to be super helpful. Do you have a specific strategy when you use them?
Could you elaborate what you mean with 2) ? What reference manager are you using?
Yeah, I’ve had mixed results too. I find tools like Connected Papers or ResearchRabbit most useful when I’m exploring a loosely defined area – like when I was looking at how “burnout” and “compassion fatigue” are used across occupational health and mental health literature. I usually start with a solid anchor paper and follow citation paths out from there to spot newer or adjacent work I might miss with keyword searches alone.
Re: reference managers – I use Zotero, mainly because it makes tagging easy. I’ll tag papers with terms like “job strain” or “occupational stress” and leave quick notes on definitions or measurement tools. It helps when trying to map how constructs shift or get re-labelled over time.
Thanks for the explanation.