Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights: Scopus, Scope & Submission Guide

Quick Answer: What Is Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights?

Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights is a gold open-access Elsevier journal for empirically grounded tourism research from a social-science perspective. The journal publishes work using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods, provided the research design is rigorous and the conclusions are supported by the evidence.

It is indexed in Scopus and carries Scopus Source ID 21101074921. Elsevier currently displays a 7.1 CiteScore and a 4.1 Impact Factor. The official Journal Insights page lists an APC of USD 2,080 excluding taxes. Authors should verify current metrics, fees, and institutional eligibility for open-access agreements before submission.

The journal is most relevant when a paper offers empirical tourism insights with significance beyond one narrowly bounded case. A technically correct study can still be unsuitable if its question, contribution, or implications remain too local or descriptive.

Key Takeaways

• Publisher: Elsevier; journal model: gold open access.
• Online ISSN: 2666-9579; Scopus Source ID: 21101074921.
• Scopus indexing is confirmed by the official Elsevier journal profile.
• Current Elsevier-displayed metrics are 7.1 CiteScore and 4.1 Impact Factor.
• Main formats include full research articles, research notes, viewpoints, and special-issue/curated-collection contributions.
• Peer review is double anonymized, so identifying author information must be separated from the review manuscript.
• The strongest fit is rigorous empirical tourism research with insights that travel beyond one study context.
• Professional editing can improve clarity and journal alignment, but it cannot guarantee acceptance or publication.

Journal Information at a Glance

What This Page Covers

• Journal identity, publisher, ISSN, Scopus record and major indexing
• Aims, scope, subject areas and likely manuscript fit
• Current verifiable metrics and how to interpret them cautiously
• Article types, word limits and manuscript preparation requirements
• Double-anonymized peer review and what to remove from the anonymized file
• Open-access model, APC and fee-verification steps
• Submission preparation, common mismatch risks and post-submission expectations
• Ethical ways Contentxprtz may support publication readiness

Methodology and Sources

This journal profile was prepared from the official ScienceDirect journal page, the official Guide for Authors, the Elsevier Journal Insights page, the official editorial board page, DOAJ, and the supplied Scopus source record.

Journal metrics, APCs, editorial teams, database coverage and workflow indicators can change. Where a current numeric SJR, SNIP, quartile, or acceptance rate was not verified from an authoritative source, this page does not estimate it.

What Is Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights?

The journal sits at the intersection of tourism studies and applied social-science research. Its distinctive emphasis is the empirical insight: the study should not merely document a phenomenon, describe a destination, or reproduce an established method in a new location. The findings need to be analysed in a way that helps readers understand tourism behaviour, organisations, markets, policy, communities, experiences, or related systems beyond the immediate sample.

Elsevier describes the title as a companion to Annals of Tourism Research. That relationship can help authors understand the positioning. The parent journal is widely associated with broader theoretical development in tourism; the empirical companion gives explicit priority to strong research designs and consequential evidence. This does not remove theory from the paper. The official criteria still ask authors to discuss how prior work or theory connects with the study.

The journal began publishing in 2020, and its issue archive shows a continuing publication record. DOAJ records the journal as open access from 2020. For institutional checks, use the exact online ISSN and Scopus Source ID rather than relying on name similarity alone.

Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights Aims and Scope

The official aims and scope describe a gold open-access social sciences journal focused on applied tourism research. Full research articles and research notes should be empirically based, and the resulting findings should have implications beyond the immediate study context. The journal explicitly identifies academy, policy, and industry practitioners as potential audiences for those wider implications.

The journal’s stated essential publication criteria are unusually useful as a pre-submission diagnostic. The research question should be relevant; the design or methodology should be clearly explained; the design should support valid conclusions; the study should use an appropriately simple and correct design; the empirical insights should be clear, analysed and discussed; those insights should matter beyond the study context; the relationship with prior work or theory should be discussed; and the manuscript should be readable and well illustrated.

Elsevier also describes several desirable features: explicit recommendations for tourism businesses, organisations or policymakers, methodological innovation, and theoretical innovation. These are described as desirable rather than universal requirements, so a paper should not manufacture an innovation claim simply to sound more ambitious.

What subject areas are relevant?

The Journal Insights page lists Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management, Sociology and Political Science, and Marketing. Within those broad areas, recent and plausible topics include tourist behaviour and preferences, tourism experiences, destination management, visitor decision-making, tourism marketing, policy responses, sustainability, overtourism, accommodation platforms, tourism labour and organisations, community effects, mobility, and methodological questions in empirical tourism research.

What may fall outside scope?

A manuscript may be a weak fit when tourism is incidental rather than central, when evidence is purely descriptive with little analytical development, when the methodology cannot support the claims, or when results have no articulated relevance beyond one narrowly bounded setting. A literature review with no empirical component also requires special scrutiny because the journal’s stated identity is strongly empirical; authors should not assume a generic narrative review fits unless a current article type or editor guidance supports it.

Scopus Indexing, Visibility and Journal Metrics

Scopus indexing is confirmed in Elsevier’s journal information, and the supplied Scopus Source ID is 21101074921. Elsevier also lists DOAJ and the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), along with SJR and SNIP-related coverage. This combination gives the journal visibility across major scholarly discovery and evaluation systems, but each university or funder may apply its own rules about which databases, years, categories, or quartiles count for a particular requirement.

The Elsevier page currently displays a CiteScore of 7.1 and an Impact Factor of 4.1. These are different metrics produced within different systems, so they should not be treated as interchangeable. Neither number determines whether a manuscript fits the editorial scope.

A current numeric SJR, SNIP, and quartile was not independently verified from an authoritative live record during preparation of this page. Because quartiles are category- and year-specific, reporting a generic “Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4” without the relevant source and year can be misleading. If your doctoral program, promotion policy, or funding rule depends on quartile, verify the latest applicable category directly before submission.

Article Types and Word Limits

The official Guide for Authors identifies several contribution formats:

Choosing the shortest format is not simply a matter of reducing word count. A Research Note is described as more than a miniature article; it needs a clear reason to communicate a focused development. A Viewpoint is more suitable for a concise, defensible position than for an underdeveloped empirical study.

Manuscript Preparation Requirements

The journal asks for editable source files. Word submissions should use a single-column layout; LaTeX may use double-column formatting. A PDF alone is not accepted as the source file for production. The official guide also asks authors to use spelling and grammar checks and remove strikethrough or underlining unless it has a scientific purpose.

Double-anonymized files

Prepare the title page and anonymized manuscript separately. The title page includes the article title, author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, declaration of interest, corresponding-author postal address and corresponding-author email. The anonymized manuscript contains the main paper, references, figures and tables but should not contain names, affiliations or other identifying information.

Abstract, keywords and highlights

The abstract should be concise and factual and must not exceed 120 words. The journal asks for 1 to 6 English keywords. Highlights are encouraged as a separate editable file; Elsevier states that highlights should contain 3 to 5 bullets, each no more than 85 characters including spaces.

Article structure and reporting

Sections should be clearly defined and numbered. The guide requests a glossary of field-specific terms in a separate list and requires CRediT contributor-role reporting for co-author contributions. Funding sources and the role of sponsors should be disclosed. Tables must be editable text, numbered and cited in the manuscript, with captions and notes where needed.

References

The journal does not require strict final reference styling at initial submission as long as the references are consistent and complete. DOI links are recommended. Elsevier states that its journal style will be applied after acceptance and that authors may be asked to correct missing reference data during production. This flexibility should not be interpreted as permission for incomplete citations: every in-text reference must correspond to the reference list and vice versa.

Peer Review and Editorial Process

Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights uses double-anonymized peer review. After initial editorial assessment for suitability, a paper considered appropriate is typically sent to at least two reviewers for independent expert assessment of scientific quality. The editors make the acceptance or rejection decision.

The official guide also describes conflict safeguards for editors: editors do not make decisions on papers they authored, papers written by family members or colleagues, or work connected to products or services in which they have an interest. Special issues and curated collections follow the same peer-review standards, although guest editors may coordinate review and recommend a decision while the journal editor retains oversight and responsibility for the final decision.

The current Editors-in-Chief listed by Elsevier are Ksenia Kirillova, PhD, Institut Lyfe, France, and Lorenzo Masiero, PhD, University of Bologna, Italy. Founding editors listed on the official page are Sara Dolnicar, PhD, and Scott McCabe, PhD. Editorial appointments can change, so verify the board before addressing a cover letter to a named editor.

Publishing Timeline and Acceptance Rate

Elsevier’s Journal Insights page currently reports the following journal-level timeline indicators: 7 days from submission to first decision, 39 days from submission to decision after review, 214 days from submission to acceptance, and 7 days from acceptance to online publication.

These figures describe past journal workflow performance; they are not guaranteed turnaround times for an individual manuscript. A paper requiring multiple revision rounds, specialist reviewers, additional ethics documentation, or complex production work may take longer.

The journal does not publicly state an acceptance rate on the official pages reviewed for this guide. Contentxprtz does not estimate one. An unofficial percentage should not be used to judge whether a manuscript will be accepted.

Open Access, Copyright and Article Publishing Charge

The journal is gold open access. Elsevier’s Journal Insights page currently lists an article publishing charge of USD 2,080 excluding taxes. DOAJ also records a charge up to USD 2,080 and indicates that a waiver policy exists. Elsevier notes that the journal participates in its GPOA program and provides institutional open-access agreement checks.

The fee is normally relevant after acceptance, not as a payment for favorable review. Before submitting, the corresponding author should check whether the institution or funder has an Elsevier agreement, whether a waiver or discount may apply, what taxes are relevant, and who is responsible for payment.

Never rely on an old blog post or cached fee when preparing a budget. APCs can change, and the amount shown in the submission workflow is the practical figure to confirm.

Publication Ethics and Responsible Use of AI

The official guide incorporates Elsevier’s publishing ethics policies. A submission should not be under consideration elsewhere and should not have been published previously except in permitted forms such as a preprint, abstract, lecture, thesis, or registered report. All listed authors should satisfy contribution expectations, approve the submitted version and accept accountability for the integrity of the work.

The guide states that authorship changes are generally not considered casually after submission and require documented agreement. Competing interests and funding sources must be disclosed. The journal may use screening tools to check compliance with publishing policies.

For generative AI, Elsevier requires a declaration when AI or AI-assisted technologies have been used in manuscript preparation beyond basic tools such as grammar, spelling, or reference checking. AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Authors remain responsible for the manuscript, and confidential unpublished material should be handled carefully. The guide also notes that reviewers and editors are not currently permitted to use generative AI tools in peer review because of confidentiality and rights concerns.

Who Should Consider Submitting to Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights?

The journal may be a sensible target for researchers whose central research problem concerns tourism and whose evidence can support conclusions relevant beyond a single setting. That can include PhD scholars, faculty members, early-career researchers, interdisciplinary teams and practitioners conducting rigorous research.

Methodology alone does not determine fit. The journal explicitly accepts social-science work under qualitative, quantitative and mixed paradigms. What matters is whether the design is appropriate, explained well and capable of supporting valid conclusions. A sophisticated model cannot compensate for a weak research question; equally, a simple design can be appropriate when it is the clearest correct way to answer the question.

Strong-fit signals

• Tourism is central to the research question rather than a background setting.
• The empirical design directly addresses the stated question.
• Findings are interpreted beyond the immediate sample, destination or organisation.
• The paper connects evidence with prior research or theory.
• Implications for tourism scholarship, policy or practice are specific and evidence-based.
• The manuscript is readable, well illustrated where useful, and transparent about limitations.

Warning signs of weak fit

• The paper is mainly a local description with little analytical transferability.
• The conclusions exceed what the sample or design can justify.
• Tourism is peripheral to the actual research problem.
• The study repeats a standard method in a new location without explaining what is learned.
• The literature review does not establish a meaningful research question.
• The manuscript is framed as theory-building but the evidence only supports modest applied conclusions.

Practical Journal-Fit Examples

Example 1: Destination case study with broader inference

A survey of visitor crowding at one heritage destination may fit if the design is strong and the analysis explains mechanisms or decision patterns that can inform overtourism management elsewhere. If the paper only reports percentages from one site and repeats generic recommendations, the contribution is likely too narrow.

Example 2: Tourism marketing experiment

An experiment testing how message framing changes sustainable travel intentions can align well when the sample, manipulation, measures and statistical analysis support the claimed effect. The discussion should connect the result to tourism marketing theory and practical campaign decisions, rather than treating statistical significance as the contribution.

Example 3: Qualitative tourism experience research

A qualitative study of visitor experiences can fit the journal’s social-science remit when sampling, coding, reflexivity and interpretive logic are transparent. The paper needs to show what the data reveal about tourism experiences beyond the participants interviewed.

Example 4: Platform or accommodation data

Research using Airbnb, review-platform or mobility data can be appropriate when data provenance, preprocessing, modelling choices and limitations are clear. Large datasets do not automatically make a paper rigorous; the design still has to match the research question.

Example 5: Policy evaluation

An empirical evaluation of a tourism tax, mobility rule or destination-management intervention can be a strong fit if there is a credible comparison or identification strategy and the conclusions remain proportionate to that design. Policy relevance is valuable, but causal language should be used only when the method supports it.

How to Prepare a Stronger Journal-Aligned Manuscript

As a practical publication-readiness step, convert the journal’s essential criteria into an internal review before submission. Ask whether every major claim in the title, abstract, results and conclusion is actually supported by the design.

1. State the tourism problem precisely. Explain why the question matters and who could use the answer.
2. Make design logic visible. Readers should understand how data, sampling, measures, analysis and comparison structure answer the research question.
3. Separate results from interpretation. Report what the data show, then explain what those findings mean in relation to prior work.
4. Demonstrate transferability or wider relevance. Do not claim universal generalisability; explain the conditions under which the insight may matter beyond the focal context.
5. Use limitations strategically. A good limitation section clarifies what the study cannot establish and points to the next empirical question.
6. Review recent journal articles. Compare your level of methodological detail, figures, table density, discussion depth and type of contribution with recent papers.
7. Check anonymization last. Remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements and self-identifying file metadata from the review manuscript while keeping the separate title page complete.

Submission Checklist

The official online submission system guides authors through metadata entry and file upload, converts files for peer review, and sends editorial correspondence by email. Use the journal’s own “Submit your article” pathway from ScienceDirect rather than an unofficial submission link.

After Submission: What Authors Can Expect

The first stage is editorial screening for fit and suitability. A fast first decision does not necessarily mean a full peer-review decision; some manuscripts are declined before external review because they fall outside scope, lack sufficient methodological credibility, or do not meet the journal’s contribution expectations.

If the paper proceeds to review, the anonymized manuscript is evaluated by independent reviewers and may return with requests for revision. A strong revision response should address each point respectfully, identify where changes were made, and explain any suggestion not adopted. Reviewer-response editing can improve clarity, but the scientific decision about whether to change an analysis or interpretation belongs to the authors.

After acceptance, authors move into production and proofing. Proofs are primarily for checking typesetting, completeness and correctness; substantial scientific changes at proof stage may require editorial approval.

Planning to Submit Your Research to Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights?

Preparing for this journal involves more than correcting grammar. The manuscript needs clear alignment with applied tourism research, a defensible empirical design, conclusions proportionate to the evidence, a concise abstract, correctly separated anonymized files, and consistent submission materials.

Contentxprtz can support researchers, PhD scholars, academics and professionals with manuscript assessment, academic editing, proofreading, ESL language polishing, title and abstract refinement, journal formatting, reference consistency checks, figure and table language review, cover-letter editing, reviewer-response editing, thesis-to-journal manuscript preparation and publication-readiness review.

Contentxprtz does not control editorial decisions and does not guarantee journal acceptance or publication. The purpose of professional support is to help authors present their own research more clearly, accurately, ethically and in closer alignment with the journal’s stated requirements.

Explore journal publication support

Summary: Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights

Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights is an Elsevier gold open-access journal for rigorous empirical tourism research. It is indexed in Scopus under Source ID 21101074921, has online ISSN 2666-9579, and is also listed by Elsevier as indexed in DOAJ and ESCI. At the time this profile was prepared, Elsevier displayed a CiteScore of 7.1, an Impact Factor of 4.1 and an APC of USD 2,080 excluding taxes.

The journal accepts full research articles, research notes and viewpoints and uses double-anonymized peer review. The central fit question is whether the research design supports valid conclusions and whether the empirical insight matters beyond one study context. Authors should verify the latest metrics, fees, editorial information and submission instructions on the official journal and database pages immediately before submission.

Conclusion: Evaluating Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights Responsibly

Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights may suit authors with well-designed empirical tourism research that can produce useful insight for a broader scholarly, policy or industry audience. Its open-access model, Scopus indexing and clearly stated methodological expectations make it straightforward to investigate, but those signals do not replace manuscript-level fit.

Before submitting, read the current Guide for Authors, examine recent papers, verify current metrics and fees, and challenge the manuscript against the journal’s own essential criteria. If professional support is useful, use it to strengthen clarity, structure, formatting and publication readiness while retaining full author responsibility for the research and final submission.