Abstract
This paper aims to present a current overview of the main productive and influential countries around the world in the tourism, leisure and hospitality field. The methodology includes a bibliometric analysis in all research journals that are indexed in the Web of Science in the tourism, leisure and hospitality field in 2014 respect to the national contribution that these countries made in these journals. The study shows that USA is the country leadership in the tourism, leisure and hospitality research. Other countries, such as UK and People’s Republic of China, also get a main position in the ranking. There are not previous studies examining all the journals indexed in the Web of Science in the tourism, leisure and hospitality field during a period as wide as this one nor including as many countries as those analyzed in this paper (Top 50).
Introduction
Scientific research published in indexed journals has increased exponentially in recent years. For example, based on data included in the Web of Science (WoS), 142.1 million documents had been published by the year 2000. However, 86.6 million had been published from 2001 to 2016. This means that the number of publications so far in the 21st century is equal to 61% of all documents published over the last century. This has led to a proliferation of bibliometric studies ([22, 55]).
There are currently many definitions of bibliometrics ([14, 54], among others). One of the simplest comes from Moed [36] who defines it as the science of measuring and analyzing a field of science of interest.
Bibliometric works analyse a wide variety of disciplines. Focussing on social sciences, the highlights include management ([42, 48]), marketing ([10, 44]), accounting [32], journals ([23, 50]), tourism [30] and hospitality ([6, 43]). Some studies have also combined analysis of several disciplines, as can be seen in the works carried out by [9, 41] in the fields of tourism and hospitality.
Tourism, leisure and hospitality research has grown considerably in recent years, as did the bibliometric studies in this area. This can be clearly shown in the works of [2, 45] ([18, 19]), [3, 54].
Analysing some of the aforementioned publications, we can highlight the papers carried out by [2, 43], who examine the most renowned journals; the papers of [3, 30] who study the number of publications from the most influential authors; the papers of [7] and [15] who analyse the topics published in certain hospitality journals; the paper of [16] who analyses the relationship between the different topics published in hospitality and tourism journals; the papers of [45] and [46] who study the topics and most influential authors in hospitality management education; the paper of [38] who study the most influential authors, institutions, countries and topics in tourism, leisure and hospitality fields, the papers of ([18, 19]), [12] and [54] who focus on the most productive and influential institutions, and that of [21, 49], who analyse the countries that have produced the most publications in certain journals in these fields.
Focussing on the studies of the countries, we highlight the work of [40] who carried out a ranking of the 30 most influential countries, although limited to 6 journals and a 10-year time span (2000–2009). [47] undertook a bibliometric analysis to determine the most productive countries, those that cooperate the most with each other and those that showed the most innovation. 17,413 papers were analysed on the topic of ‘tourism’ in the WoS database up to 2013 so that the work was based on tourism, leisure and hospitality journals and on many from other fields. Lastly, the works of [21, 49] focussed on analysing which countries published papers in Chinese and Turkish journals, respectively.
Despite the aforementioned studies analysed themes, methods and disciplines resulting in a snapshot of which countries were the most influential in these fields, we believe that there is still room to advance in this research by covering a wider time span and a higher number of journals. The bibliometric analysis in this paper will be especially useful in terms of overcoming this limitation, since by using a wider database we will be able to more precisely identify the top countries of the world in tourism, leisure and hospitality research.
The aim of this study is to determine which countries are the most productive and influential in tourism, leisure and hospitality through a global analysis of the most influential journals in the field (according to the WoS). The results point to the USA, UK, Australia, People’s Republic of China and Canada being the most influential countries.
This work is hugely interesting for several reasons. Firstly, it is useful to tourism, leisure and hospitality scholars in terms of uncovering which countries offer more potential to develop and share research [25]. The information will also be useful to them for deciding the countries where it would be interesting to carry out their doctoral studies, as well as their future research and career development [26]. Furthermore, it will be interesting for researchers to discover the countries where research collaborations can be strengthened.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. First, the methods section presents the methodology used. Next, we analyse the main results and, finally, the conclusion summarises the main findings, limitations and future research.
Methods
In order to assess the research undertaken in an area of knowledge, we look at the number of published papers, the citations they receive and the h-index [34]. In line with the ideas put forward by [4], counting articles is a way to measure research productivity in a region or country, albeit solely based on quantitative aspects. However, to assess the quality of the articles, there are other more specific productivity measures aimed at research content, such as the number of citations it gets, the citation-to-publication ratio and the h-index. This is why this paper uses several of the aforementioned indicators. Therefore, we should obtain a more comprehensive overview of the most influential countries in a specific area of knowledge by thoroughly examining the research undertaken in said area.
The samples used in our study were contributions published in all the hospitality and tourism research journals included in the WoS. When selecting our sample, we took those journals included in the ‘Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism’ category, and eliminated those linked to sport. We obtained 21 journals in total, set out in Table 1 and ordered by impact factor.
Twenty-one leading journals in tourism, leisure and hospitality research in WoS
Twenty-one leading journals in tourism, leisure and hospitality research in WoS
Source: own elaboration. Abbreviations: Y = year of inclusion in WoS; IF-2Y=2 year impact factor 2016.
The data collection was undertaken in the first semester of 2015. We looked at all available information in the WoS from 1990 to 2014, also performing five-year analyses. We believe that this time span provides a representative sample to achieve the research aim. The following documents were reviewed: article, review, note and letter. Specifically, the sample comprises 9,616 documents from the 21 most influential academic journals in the field of tourism, leisure and hospitality.
We completed our analysis with a study of the bibliometric network through the use of VOSviewer software. This software is used to analyse a wide variety of bibliometric networks [51]. We combined full and fractional counting, providing the methodology used in our work with more consistency. Specifically, we undertook a co-authorship, bibliographic coupling and citation analysis for the countries.
This section presents the results of the study in four sections.
Top 50 Countries
Table 2 sets out the global ranking of the top 50 countries in tourism, leisure and hospitality research.
The most productive countries (T50) in WoS
The most productive countries (T50) in WoS
Source: own elaboration. Abbreviations: R = ranking; TP = total number of publications; TC = total number of citations; C/P=citations divided by publications; h = h-index;>100, 50 and 20 = number of papers with more than 100, 50 and 20 citations; Pop: population (in thousands); P/Pop=total publications per million inhabitants; C/Pop=total citations per million inhabitants.
Firstly, we looked at productivity via the number of papers. The table clearly shows the USA at the top (28.1%), which publishes nearly three times as many articles as the UK, in second spot (11.7%). They are followed by Australia (10.3%), People’s Republic of China (7.7%), Canada (5.4%) and Taiwan (4.7%). Tourism, leisure and hospitality research is clearly concentrated in 9 countries which make up around 80% of total global production. Instead, if the population of each country is considered, other countries such as New Zealand, Barbados, Iceland, Australia & Norway stand out in productivity.
We scored the quality of each country’s contributions by analysing the number of citations, the citation-to-publication ratio and the h-index. These indicators are quality standards accepted by the scientific community. While it is true that older papers may be cited more often, since our work takes a wide time span as a reference (journal inclusion in the WoS from 1990 to 2014), the differences between the countries should be neutralised.
The quality ranking barely differs from the productivity ranking. The top-6 countries for production are also the top-6 for citations. The top-9 countries in production represent nearly 85% of all citations. The top-10 for production only differs by two countries from the top-10 for citations (Turkey moves up and the Netherlands drops down). The C/Pop ranking is the same as that of P/Pop, which shows that these countries publish influential papers. A similar pattern can be seen in the h-index ranking, which shows scant differences from the production table.
Temporal evolution of the most productive countries (T30) in tourism, leisure and hospitality research
Source: Own elaboration. Abbreviations are available in Table 2.
The citation-to-publication ratio is useful for analysing a country’s ability to influence the field by producing publications that have an impact on the scientific community. Here, we do indeed see significant variations. The top-10 is led by Canada, followed by Botswana, Turkey, Israel, New Zealand, Cyprus, Fiji, Barbados and Mauritius, with the USA in 10th. The UK drops to 12th and Australia to 15th. Countries with few publications can improve their position in the table by publishing works that are frequently cited, demonstrating the high quality of these articles.
If we compare the countries according to the number of papers with a minimum of 100, 50 or 20 citations, there are few variations in the top-10 (again, Turkey moves up and the Netherlands drops out). Once again, the top-9 make up 87% of the most cited articles. Outside the top-10, Denmark, Fiji, Singapore and Cyprus make significant gains while Malaysia, Austria and Italy move down.
We have analyzed the 25 most cited papers of the first 5 countries in the ranking by TP to search for their keywords. The three most studied topics by the leading countries are the internet (information technology, social media, online sales and online marketing); attitudes (tourist and resident of the country of destination); and sustainable tourism. Peoples R. China leads the papers on the internet, followed by the USA and the UK. In relation to attitudes studies, the leading country is the USA, followed by Australia and Canada (equaliness in the ranking). In sustainable tourism there is no clear leadership.
Table 3 offers a time analysis over the last 25 years (by five-year periods) for the 30 most productive countries, also showing citations received and h-index.
It is important to note that the number of journals in the WoS over this time does not remain static. The proliferation of journals has led to many more published works and citations received, especially in the most recent period (2010–2014) (see Tables 4 and 5).
Number of Journals in WoS in tourism, leisure and hospitality 1990–2014
Number of Journals in WoS in tourism, leisure and hospitality 1990–2014
Source: own elaboration.
Annual evolution of publications in the main countries (T30)
Source: own elaboration. Abbreviations: Years 1*: 1990, 2*: 1991, 3*: 1992, 4*: 1993, 5*: 1994, 6*: 1995, 7*: 1996, 8*: 1997, 9*: 1998, 10*: 1999, 11*: 2000, 12*: 2001, 13*: 2002, 14*: 2003, 15*: 2004, 16*: 2005, 17*: 2006, 18*: 2007, 19*: 2008, 20*: 2009, 21* 2010, 22*: 2011, 23*: 2012, 24*: 2013, 25*: 2014.
With regard to productivity, the USA clearly leads other countries, coming in top across all periods with a major advantage over the rest. The UK and Australia continue to hold important positions across all periods. Over the last 20 years, Taiwan and Spain make five-year improvements and enter the top-30. People’s Republic of China also sees a marked improvement. South Korea has been in the top-10 since the year 2000. Conversely, Canada, New Zealand and Israel have lost ground over the years.
In terms of citations received, the USA is again top across all periods. It is followed by the UK and Australia. The continuous progress make by Taiwan in the table should be highlighted, as should the ground lost by Canada, New Zealand and Israel over the years.
The citation-to-publication ratio paints a different picture. The temporal analysis of this ratio shows that there is no dominant country or set of countries in this sense. The exception is Canada, which is among the Top-4 countries during three of the five analysed periods. Looking at the Top-8, People’s Republic of China enters the ranking over the last 20 years. Of further note is that the most productive countries and those with the most citations, the USA, the UK and Australia, drop down in the table. This is not because said countries receive few citations but rather due to the high number of papers produced in these countries, meaning the ratio denominator increases enormously and thus cuts the values obtained. A further highlight is the decrease in average ratio scores over time. The respective values are: 15 20.1, 28.2, 16 and 4.5. This is due to the proliferation of journals and, therefore, documents, with the subsequent increase in the denominator.
Countries with the highest number of documents in TM.
Countries with the highest number of documents in JTR.
Countries with the highest number of documents in IJCHM.
Countries with the highest number of documents in ATR.
Countries with the highest number of documents in JST.
Countries with the highest number of documents in IJHM.
Countries with the highest number of documents in CIT.
The following graphics analyse the production of each country in the 21 journals covered by this paper. A table of the 10 most productive countries for each journal is provided. It has detected a relationship between the leading countries in the production ranking and the country where the journal comes from. Specifically, the country of the journal’s publisher coincides with the country that is in the top 3 of leading countries in 16 of the 19 journals studied, 84.2% (we have excluded the SJHT & APJTR journals because they are clearly local).
As can been seen in the figures above, the USA leads in number of publications in most journals looked at (12), followed by the UK (6). Other three countries that top the publication table for some of the journals looked at are Norway, Australia and People’s Republic of China. The twelve journals led by the USA publish 73% of this country’s total production.
Countries with the highest number of documents in IJTR.
Countries with the highest number of documents in TG.
Countries with the highest number of documents in JLR.
Countries with the highest number of documents in JTTM.
Countries with the highest number of documents in TE.
Countries with the highest number of documents in LS.
Countries with the highest number of documents in APJTR.
If we look at the total number of published documents in each journal, only TM and ATR surpass 1,000 published documents during the period analysed, thus confirming the leadership of these two journals in the research field.
We can also see that the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Korea are the only countries to have published in all the journals analysed. Nevertheless, if we analyse the countries that have published in at least 18 journals, the figure increases to 14 countries.
By applying relational bibliometric techniques, we analysed the relations between the countries that are home to the publications under analysis in this paper.
Co-authorship analysis enables us to see the volume of publications from a country and the main connections it has with others. Figure 1 has been compiled based on the 26 countries that share co-authorship on a minimum of 50 articles with another country. The USA has the highest productivity and connections. In terms of the latter, it is followed by People’s Republic of China, Australia and the UK. No highly disperse and isolated clusters can be seen, but rather a highly intense relationship between the different regions with a large connection network between them all.
Mapping of countries with 50 co-authorship and the 100 most influential connections.
Figure 2 analyses the connections between papers that cite the same bibliographical references. If two countries are related by a connection line this means that two works, one from each country, cite a third common work in their bibliographies. This enables us to identify the countries that work on similar research topics. There are two significant clusters, albeit interrelated to each other. The USA continues to lead the ranking, being the country with the greatest bibliographic coupling. In this instance, Australia comes in second and the UK in third. And People’s Republic of China drops from second to fourth position.
Bibliographic coupling of countries with a threshold of 50 papers and the 80 most influential connections.
Lastly, if we look at citations, Fig. 3 shows the aforementioned four countries continue to lead in the number of connections, confirming the results of the previous two analyses.
Citations analysis of countries with a threshold of 50 papers and the 100 most influential connections.
Countries with the highest number of documents in JTCC.
Countries with the highest number of documents in LSt.
Countries with the highest number of documents in SJHT.
Countries with the highest number of documents in CHQ.
Countries with the highest number of documents in JHLSTE.
Countries with the highest number of documents in JHTR.
Countries with the highest number of documents in TS.
The bibliometric analysis carried out has enabled to assess tourism, leisure and hospitality research, as has been done in other works on different disciplines ([5, 55]). In particular, the work shows a general overview of the countries that have published the most articles in tourism, leisure and hospitality journals indexed in the WoS from 1990 to 2014.
The paper responds to recent calls made in other articles so that future bibliometric research will focus on the number of citations and documents, and not on the impact factor of the journal ([1, 52]). Specifically, our work looks at 9,616 documents (article, review, note and letter). Of these, 9,486 (98.60%) were published by the 50 most prolific countries in tourism, leisure and hospitality field. The USA is the most productive country based on the number of published works, the country with the most citations and has the highest h-index. By contrast, Canada leads the ranking if we take into account the citation-to-publication ratio.
The dynamic analysis results are in line with the attained global results. In this sense, the USA is the most influential country for most five-year periods and for the analysed journals. People’s Republic of China and Taiwan also stand out, showing a major upswing in their positions over the different five-year periods looked at. Conversely, Israel has suffered a major backwards slide over the five-year periods under analysis.
The bibliometric maps confirm that the USA, the UK, Australia and People’s Republic of China are the most productive countries with longer bibliographic coupling lines and the most citations received.
The study undertaken does have some limitations. Despite the study gives more insight in the main countries for tourism, leisure and hospitality research, we should bear in mind, as stated in [33], that an author may work overseas and, therefore, it is no simple task to assess the effective research undertaken by researchers native to one country. In this sense, certain countries (e.g. Anglo-Saxon countries) obtain better results than they otherwise would if only native researchers to those countries were taken into account. Meanwhile, the opposite occurs in other countries (such as non-English-speaking nations).
Another limitation is that only the journals indexed in the WoS are taken into account, without looking at other possible databases. Despite this, we believe the sample analysed is significant since nearly 10,000 documents have been looked at and, therefore, the conclusions drawn in this work may be generalised. In this regard, the WoS performs full counting, i.e. it provides one unit point to each participating country in an article instead of dividing it between all the countries included in the same article. To minimise this limitation, we have carried out an analysis with VOSviewer software enabling fractional counting. The analysis of the VOSviewer results are similar to those obtained from the tables produced with the WoS data and, consequently, there are no significant differences between the full and fractional counting results. Therefore, the result is logical from a statistical standpoint and, since a large number of researchers was included, the deviations should be compensated.
Future areas of research will focus on analysing the possible relationship between the nationality of the chief editor of a journal and the number of documents from that country published in the journal, in line with what [19] has put forward. We also intend to explore the main topics analysed to date for each of the different countries looked at in this article, with the aim of determining whether there is any relationship between subjects and geographical borders which, in turn, could lead to new interesting questions and perspectives. Finally, the newer journals recently included in the WoS were not looked at and, therefore, offer another opportunity for future research work.