This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.

This study analyses 3597 documents published between 1964 and 2025 by 1029 sources. The document average age is 7.26, and the annual growth rate is 24.88%. As seen in Figure 1, over the last few decades, the number of scientific articles has dramatically increased and appears to have plateaued around 2021–2022. This decrease may be in part a result of incomplete data for the 2023–2024 publishing years, or it might reflect fewer publications overall. Regarding the citations over the years, the yearly citation averages fluctuated more. The sharp spike in 1988 may have been the result of a pivotal article or event within the scientific community. Following that, the mean citations per article tended to increase with time as well – the research appearing in journals of any given suit became more visible. The recent decline could also align with those same production graph reasons.

The dataset includes publications written by 7855 authors. The number of the authors of single-authored documents is 737, which is the one-tenth of the total author number. This means that most of the publications belong to more than two authors. The top five most prolific authors are Dimitrios Buhalis (total publication [TP] = 22; total citations [TC] = 3336; publication year start [PY_start] = 2000), Rob Law (TP = 22; TC = 986; PY_start = 2007), Ying Wang (TP = 19; TC = 980; PY_start = 2002), Lori Pennington-Gray (TP = 16; TC = 780; PY_start = 2011), Daniel R. Fesenmaier (TP = 15; TC = 2934; PY_start = 1993) and Lorenzo Cantoni (TP = 14; TC = 206; PY_start = 2012). To reveal the productivity of the authors publishing in this field, the Lotka’s Law was applied to the dataset, and according to the author productivity figure (see Figure 2), it can be asserted that the scientific productivity (c = 86.60%) is substantially skewed, and much of the published work comes from a few authors. This is also evidence of Lotka’s Law, which proposes that authors contribute most of the documents, and many more have written very little. The 3-fold drop-off from one document to multiple documents indicates that the potential or willingness of authors diminishes substantially when their work increases (Su et al. 2019).

This study finds that the top 10 most prolific institutions are located in four different continents, including Asia, Europe, North America and Oceania. The most prolific institution is the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Hong Kong, TP = 109), followed by Griffith University (Australia, TP = 66), Sun Yat-Sen University (China, TP = 52), The University of Queensland (Australia, TP = 52), Kyung Hee University (South Korea, TP = 51), University of Surrey (United Kingdom [UK], TP = 50), University of Florida (United States of America [USA], TP = 47), James Cook University (Australia, TP = 43), Huaqiao University (China, TP = 42) and University of Valencia (Spain, TP = 42). In a similar vein, this study investigates the country collaborations in the field of tourism communication (see Figure 3), and ascertains that the top 10 most-collaborating countries include USA-China (TP = 40), China-Australia (TP = 26), China-Hong Kong (TP = 26), China-UK (TP = 23), USA-Korea (TP = 23), USA-UK (TP = 21), Spain-Portugal (TP = 19), Spain-UK (TP = 17), USA-Hong Kong (TP = 15), UK-Italy (TP = 14), USA-Australia (TP = 14), UK-Australia (TP = 13) and UK-Hong Kong (TP = 10). The diversity of the countries in the collaboration is also clear from the international co-authorship rate. The international co-authorship rate has been determined to be 22.52%, meaning that a quarter of the documents available in the analysed dataset belong to authors from different countries.

The authors from different countries on different continents publish their articles in 1029 different sources, namely journals. As can be seen in Table 1, the top h-index (62), g-index (117), and the highest TC of 14 083 place ‘Tourism Management’ journal first among all journals in this table. This means it has a high influence and is highly cited in its field. Moreover, the relatively young ‘Sustainability (Switzerland)’ with an m-index of 2.417 published quite a high number of papers (NP) (179 publications) making it rank first, but still on par, granting it a seemingly fast gain in importance across disciplines starting its voyage back in 2013. To sum up, although older journals such as ‘Tourism Management’ and ‘Annals of Tourism Research’ have built an influence over time, the table shows that newer journals such as ‘Sustainability (Switzerland)’ are catching up quickly.

Bradford’s Law is a bibliometric principle that describes how articles are distributed across journals within a specific field of study. According to Bradford’s Law, journals in a given field can be divided into three ‘zones’ based on the number of articles they publish (Su et al. 2019). As illustrated in Figure 4, Zone 1 (Core Zone) contains the fewest number of journals but the highest number of articles, turning them into the most influential journals in the field. In the middle zone is Zone 2, which covers more journals than Zone 1, but each journal in this Zone publishes fewer articles than those in Zone 1. Lastly, the ‘peripheral zone’ or Zone 3 is the zone where the largest number of journals can be found, each contributing the fewest number of articles (Su et al. 2019). In the context of this study, Zone 1 covers 21 journals, which are the most determining and impactful journals likely to publish a disproportionately large number of the most cited or most important papers in the field. Zone 2 contains 133 journals, which contribute significantly to the field but with a lesser concentration of key articles. They may be counted as the more specialised journals which serve as secondary sources of tourism communication research. Finally, Zone 3 includes 875 journals, making it the largest zone with relatively few articles. Despite being less influential individually, they collectively provide a wide base of knowledge. This pattern – where the number of journals increases from Zone 1 to Zone 3, while the number of articles per journal decreases – perfectly aligns with the principles of Bradford’s Law. It illustrates that a few journals are highly productive and central to the field, while the majority of journals contribute fewer articles and are less central.

This study examines 9665 author keywords. Among the top 10 most used author keywords, ‘tourism’ comes first with 548 occurrences, followed by ‘social media’ (n = 170), ‘communication’ (n = 136), ‘COVID-19’ (n = 101), ‘sustainable tourism’ (n = 98), ‘sustainability’ (n = 88), ‘ICT’ (n = 84), ‘destination image’ (n = 70), ‘marketing’ (n = 65) and ‘hospitality’ (n = 53). The keyword ‘tourism’ appears most frequently, indicating that it is the central theme of the majority of the studies. This suggests that the research field is heavily focused on various aspects of tourism. The second most frequent keyword is ‘social media’, which highlights the growing interest in the impact and role of social media within the tourism industry. It may reflect studies on how social media influences tourist behaviour, destination marketing or community engagement. The prominence of ‘communication’ suggests a significant focus on how information is exchanged within the tourism context, potentially covering topics such as marketing communications, public relations and interpersonal communication in tourism services. This analysis of author keywords reveals the central themes and emerging areas of focus within tourism research. The dominance of ‘tourism’ as a keyword underscores the broad interest in various aspects of the tourism industry. Simultaneously, the notable occurrence of keywords such as ‘social media’, ‘communication’, ‘COVID-19’ and ‘sustainability’ points to current and evolving trends that are shaping the direction of research in this field. This data suggest that researchers are particularly interested in the intersections of tourism with technology, sustainability and the impacts of global events such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. What is more, by considering the author keywords, this study presents the thematic map below, which visually represents the relationship between different themes in the field of tourism communication.

The thematic map (see Figure 5) provides a snapshot of the research landscape in the field of tourism communication. It highlights the most important and well-developed themes (‘tourism,’ ‘communication’ and ‘marketing’) while also identifying foundational themes that are central to the field but may require further development (‘social media,’ ‘COVID-19,’ ‘destination image,’ ‘sustainable tourism,’ ‘ict’ and ‘sustainability’). The presence of specialised topics (‘satisfaction,’ ‘trust,’ ‘loyalty,’ ‘China,’ ‘ecotourism’ and ‘management’) indicates niche research areas, while emerging or potentially declining themes such as ‘cultural tourism,’ ‘cultural heritage’ and ‘climate change’ suggest areas of growing interest or diminishing focus.

The results based on science mapping techniques include the bibliographic coupling and co-citation results of the bibliometric analysis on the ‘tourism communication’ literature extracted from the Scopus database.

The bibliographic coupling analysis conducted via VOSviewer using a minimum of 250 citations per document resulted in five clusters with 28 items connected with 56 links. Bibliographic coupling clusters documents according to the number of works cited in common, signifying that materials within each collection are tightly interconnected regarding the literature referenced (Donthu et al. 2021). The interrelationships between sources spread across clusters, as it appears in Figure 6, yet articles belonging to a single grouping demonstrate pronounced interconnections through shared references. When the clusters were examined closely, it was observed that the first cluster (A) was comprised of seven items and based on the topic they addressed, it was determined that cluster A was dealing with issues related to the role of ICT and stakeholders in sustainable tourism communication. The second cluster (B), formed with six items, was found to address the issues, which could be named under the theme of ‘SoCoMo marketing strategies in tourism and hospitality’. The third cluster (C) also included six items concentrated on the issue of ‘the impact of social media and user-generated content in tourism communication’. The fourth cluster (D) with five items addressed the theme of ‘the role of professionalism and smartphones in the tourist experiences of the tourism services.’ Ultimately, the theme of the fifth cluster (E), containing four items, was determined to be ‘the role of electronic word-of-mouth and information search behaviour in destination image’.

The clusters of the documents illustrated in Figure 7 were derived from a co-citation analysis of a minimum of 250 citations of a cited reference. In this type of analysis, documents are assembled based on co-citations; that is, they have been cited together in other research articles (Donthu et al. 2021). The five clusters with 36 items and 354 links available in the figure show five different research themes in tourism communication and management.

As is clear from the co-citation analysis figure (see Figure 7), the clusters are seemingly close to each other, showing the interrelationships between the clusters. The first cluster (A) was formed with 10 items, and this cluster centres on smart tourism and the strategic role of ICT in tourism management. It highlights how technology, especially smart tourism, is leveraged to enhance destination competitiveness and the overall tourism experience. The second cluster (B) comprised nine items and was methodological, focusing on behavioural theories and advanced statistical techniques (such as SEM – structural equation modelling) commonly applied to research in tourism. These methods are significant for the validation of the models used to predict tourist behaviour and attitudes. The third cluster (C) with eight items revolves around the role of social media in tourism, particularly in terms of user-generated content and electronic word of mouth (e-WOM). The fourth cluster (D), including five items, centres on the theoretical foundations of tourism, especially the concept of ‘the tourist gaze’ and issues related to authenticity and perception in tourism. It delves into how tourists perceive and experience destinations, influenced by cultural and social factors. Finally, the last cluster (E) with four items focuses on the destination image and the factors that impact how tourists perceive and experience the destinations. The items in this cluster are based on studies on the travelling motivations and how these motivations shape the perception and image of the destinations, especially in terms of the online context.

The findings of this study offer several theoretical implications. Firstly, the research expands the theoretical framework by emphasising the intricate interaction between ICTs and the evolving research domain of tourism communication. These findings align with existing frameworks that emphasise the strategic role of technology in enhancing destination competitiveness and tourist experiences (Buhalis 2000; Gretzel et al. 2015). Similarly, the prominent role of ‘social media’ as a frequent keyword and research theme highlights its theoretical importance in understanding modern tourism dynamics. The impact of social media on tourist behaviour, destination marketing, and electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) suggests that communication in tourism is becoming increasingly decentralised and user-centred. This shift aligns with technological determinist communication theories, such as Harold Innis’s, as social media and ICTs enable users not only to actively receive targeted messages but also to co-produce or even generate their own content on digital platforms, where the tourism sector engages with (potential) customers for sustainable management. Thus, this shift challenges traditional communication models and requires an updated conceptual framework that integrates digital and social media platforms into the tourism ecosystem (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010; Xiang & Gretzel 2010). Secondly, through a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of scholarly contributions since 1964, this study reveals the multifaceted nature of tourism communication, providing a deeper understanding of the intellectual progression within the field. Identifying emerging and basic themes such as sustainability, COVID-19 and destination image suggests theoretical discussions that have evolved in response to global challenges. These themes encourage a rethinking of traditional tourism communication theories, encouraging scholars to include sustainability practices, crisis communication and resilience-building in their frameworks. The rapid expansion of research on sustainability reflects the increasing need for theoretical models that consider the long-term environmental, social and economic impacts of tourism. Moreover, it uncovers theoretical gaps in tourism communication, emphasising the necessity of integrating interdisciplinary approaches. By looking at tourism communication as a field of study, this article informs that the field is not restricted only to the field of tourism or communication as a base, but also inclusive of topics addressed by disciplines such as medicine and information engineering. This stresses that the relevant field is directed by the theoretical perspectives embodied in different disciplines. Thirdly, this analysis enriches the theoretical discourse by mapping the evolution of core research clusters, such as trust, satisfaction, loyalty in tourism, the impact of social media and crisis communication. The topics driving the development of this field include the core research interests in the fields of psychology, sociology, engineering and sustainability science. Eventually, the research findings reinforce the relevance of behavioural theories and advanced statistical techniques, such as SEM, as evidenced by a cluster of methodological works. These theories are critical for validating models of tourist behaviour and motivations, which are crucial in predicting destination choice, satisfaction and loyalty. The use of these quantitative techniques enriches the theoretical understanding of how tourists make decisions, interact with destinations and form perceptions, supporting established models such as the ‘Theory of Planned Behaviour’ (Ajzen 1991). In conclusion, this research establishes a solid foundation for future theoretical advancements, particularly those exploring the intersection of and communication within tourism and hospitality.

This study provides several important practical insights for tourism managers, marketers and policymakers. A key managerial implication is the identification of ICT and social media as critical themes in tourism communication, which emphasises the need for tourism businesses to strategically invest in digital platforms and technologies. Destination marketing organisations (DMOs) should leverage social media and user-generated content (e-WOM) to engage tourists, shape destination images and drive engagement. Given the growing influence of social media, managing an effective online presence is crucial for enhancing customer experience and boosting destination visibility.

Another managerial implication of this study is that the strong focus on ‘sustainability’ highlights the growing importance of sustainable practices in the tourism industry. Managers should prioritise environmentally responsible operations and promote sustainable tourism options to meet rising consumer demand. In addition, the increased attention to themes such as ‘COVID-19’ suggests that tourism operators must develop resilient crisis communication strategies to manage disruptions and maintain trust with travellers during crises. The study also underscores the value of collaborations across countries and institutions, which can lead to innovation and best practices sharing. Policymakers and tourism leaders should foster international partnerships to enhance knowledge transfer, improve tourism policies and support destination recovery efforts post-pandemic. Furthermore, the analysis of top-performing journals and prolific institutions provides managers with insight into the leading research outlets and key experts in the field, enabling them to stay informed on cutting-edge trends and innovations in tourism communication. Engaging with these sources can support evidence-based decision-making and strategy development.

This article is not free of some theoretical and methodological limitations, which can be addressed and eliminated by future research. Firstly, this study relies exclusively on data from Scopus, which, while comprehensive, may not include all relevant publications from other databases such as WoS, Google Scholar or regional journals. This could lead to the omission of important works, particularly those published in non-English or regionally focused journals. Future studies could expand the dataset by incorporating publications from additional databases such as WoS or subject-specific repositories. This would offer a much more holistic view of the field and capture regionally focused or non-English publications.

Secondly, because of the authors’ linguistic capabilities, this study included only English-language articles, potentially excluding valuable research published in other languages. This may skew the analysis towards Western perspectives and under-represent studies from non-English-speaking regions. To eliminate this, future research can expand the scope to include non-English language publications, offering a more globally representative view of tourism communication. This could reveal unique trends and theoretical developments in regions under-represented in current analyses.

Thirdly, the study limited its scope to publications in social sciences, which may overlook relevant interdisciplinary contributions from fields such as environmental sciences, economics and technology. This narrow focus may reduce the comprehensiveness of the findings related to tourism communication. Future research can overcome this limitation by employing a more comprehensive perspective, not only restricting itself to the social sciences.

Fourthly, the study focused solely on peer-reviewed journal articles, excluding grey literature (e.g. reports, theses and conference proceedings). This limitation means that potentially significant practical contributions from the industry or early-stage research may be omitted, leading to a less comprehensive understanding of tourism communication research.

Finally, this study relies on the bibliometric method, which primarily focuses on quantitative data such as citation counts and publication numbers. This approach may overlook qualitative aspects of research contributions, such as the depth, originality or practical impact of individual studies. As a result, some influential works with fewer citations or those published in less-cited journals might be under-represented. Similarly, it utilised two specific tools, VOSviewer and Biblioshiny, for bibliometric analysis. While these tools are robust for visualising networks and performing performance analyses, they are limited in terms of analysing more nuanced relationships between articles or authors. More advanced techniques, such as text mining or natural language processing (NLP), could reveal deeper insights into thematic patterns that traditional bibliometric tools may miss. Furthermore, bibliometric analysis typically counts citations without considering the context in which an article is cited. Not all citations are positive or indicative of high-quality work; some could be critiques or disagreements. Future research could include qualitative citation analysis to understand how and why certain works are cited, providing a more nuanced picture of an article’s influence.