(See also a more recent blog post: How to Title Your Article: Rules and Tips)

In there early days of Tourism Geographies (which was first published in 1999), there were basically no restrictions on how authors titled their papers. Some of them approached the method that is common for some thesis and dissertations of including ​every possible keyword in the title, with the apparent belief that this would be (1) the most accurate approach, and (2) attract the most (or maybe the best?) readers. After TG became accepted in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI, in 2008), however, I learned that there are some general guidelines on how to title a paper to attract the largest audience. 

I was told by my publisher that, in general, papers that review the research literature on a certain topic attract the largest audiences. Thus, Progress in Human Geography, which mostly publishes review-type articles, has the highest SSCI rating of all geography journals. On the other hand, papers with the words "case study" in their title generally have the smallest readership because only people who have a specific interest in that case study location are likely to read the paper.

Based on this knowledge, I initially implemented a policy of limiting titles for Tourism Geographies to 10 words. (I had heard of other journals that have an 8 word limit!) The goal was to make every paper sound like a literature review paper to maximize their potential for citation. After a couple of years of complaints, I changed the word limit to 12 words, which people seem to be OK with. I will also suggest alternate titles that I think will work better for people who have a hard time with the 12 word limit. 

In addition, I mostly ban the words "case study" from titles -- although occasionally they slip through because I am not always so vigilant. If there is a case study involved, it should be mentioned in the abstract and the place should be listed in the keywords (I have been even more lax on enforcing this). However, the place does not need to be in the title. (Occasionally, an author has a case study that is not mentioned it in the title, abstract or keywords, which I also think is a mistake-- although in the opposite direction.)

Most of the papers that are published in a journal like Tourism Geographies are in between the two extremes of pure literature review and pure case study. They are driven by theory, and therefore contain a well conceptualized literature review, and they are empirically based on case study field work that is trying to resolve a theoretical question. For those papers, the theoretical question is what should drive the title. The empirical place (usually) does not need to be in the title, but should be mentioned in the abstract and keywords.

On the other hand, if the paper is mostly a case study, in which theory is secondary or only used to support a critical analysis of the case, then the case study place should be in the title, along with the basic goals of the argument that is being made. This is especially true of 'Tourism Places' articles, which are a special type of article published in Tourism Geographies. These articles usually have a particular theoretical perspective or lens that is used to expand out understanding of the tourism experience, though they are usually not trying to necessarily develop new theoretical understandings.

Of course nothing is sacrosanct, and it is very possible for a case study to be very popular, and for a literature review paper to fall flat. In the end, the quality of the research and writing are more important that the title. But I think knowing these general rules can help place a paper in a proper perspective to build its readership.

This is the introduction to a special section of Tourism Geographies in Volume 20, #1 (February 2018). Not that it was actually published in mid-December 2017.

If anyone wants a copy of any or all of the Commentary papers in this issue, place send me an email request.  Additional commentaries will appear in future issues on Volume 20. 

Introduction: Tourism Geographies Today
By Alan A. Lew
 
The year 2018 marks two decades of publishing Tourism Geographies. To celebrate this occasion, we have asked members of the Tourism Geographies Editorial Board, including emeritus members, to write short commentaries on any aspect of the geographic study of tourism that they think might be of interest to our readers. I have organized these contributions into general themes that will be published through 2018 (Volume 20) of the journal. This first set of commentaries is set under the theme of ‘Tourism Geographies Today’. This is not about the state of the journal, which is very healthy, but rather the contemporary role of the geographic study of tourism in and around the world. The contributors include distinguished and emerging scholars, including Deborah Che (Australia), David Crouch (UK), Sanette Ferriera (South Africa), Carolin Funck (Japan), Alison Gill (Canada), Guosheng Han (China), Dieter Müller (Sweden), Piotr Niewiadomski (UK), Theano Terkenli (Greece) and Dallen Timothy (USA). Some of these scholars provide insights into the status of tourism geography study and research in their home countries or regions, while other look at the contemporary role of tourism geography in the broader context of the disciplines of geography and tourism studies.
​
These commentaries are not intended to be comprehensive reviews of the literature, but rather personal observations that provide insight into both the field of tourism geography and the personality and perspective of some of those who identify with that field of study. While some significant issues on the are raised by the contributors to this special anniversary project, all the authors have a positive opinion on the significant benefits of a geographic perspective on tourism phenomena. This bolds well for the future of a research subject that we have come to hold dearly in our professional lives. I trust that readers will gain some of this sense of enthusiasm, as well, through these commentaries. Tourism geographers (and like-minded scholars) who are not members of the journal’s editorial board should feel free to contact me if they would like to make similar contributions to future issues of the journal. ​

I am sure that authors feel really bad when they submit an article to Tourism Geographies (or any journal) and it gets a desk rejection -- i.e., an editor decides not to send a paper out for anonymous review. There are several reasons for doing a desk rejection, including a poorly written paper with many grammar and other problems. But the most common reason that I encounter is that the paper is primarily a case study that does not address a theoretical or conceptually debated social science issue. For that type of paper, here is a typical paragraph that I might send to explain my decision:

Tourism Geographies is a social science journal and we primarily publishing papers that address theoretical issues grounded in the social sciences. Your paper lacks a significant theoretical research question (or at least it was not clearly defined) and is mostly dealing with issues related to a specific, though very detailed, case study. Your conclusions, for example, only address the case study and do not offer findings that inform a debated conceptual problem that would be of interest to a global audience. Because of this issue, I will not be sending it out for review.

When I tell people this in writing workshops that I sometimes conduct, someone often asks if that means I would never accept a case study. The answer, of course, is no. Case studies are important. But they are not the most important part of a good paper.  Here is some advice that I once received about doing research, and which I try to instill in people (students and colleagues) who I advise.

• "When you think about your research, the primary research problem should be entirely unrelated to any one specific case study. You should temporarily forget the case study and just focus on defining your conceptual problem, making sure it is well grounded in theory. You should be able to ignore your case study completely, and still clearly see what the theoretical research problem is. That problem should be one that can be answered by different case studies, not just the one that you happen to be in a position to pursue at this time."
  
  "Once you have defined the research problem in this way, then you can turn to the case study. The main question about the case study then becomes, why is this case study especially suited to answering or addressing the theoretical research problem that you have defined."

This is what I am looking for when authors submit a paper to Tourism Geographies. I have no problem that there is a case study, but most importantly I want to know what the conceptual problem is that the case study is helping to resolve. Secondarily would be the question of why this case study is especially good in addressing the conceptual problem.

This approach has helped me enormously in my own conceptualization of research projects and papers. Hopefully this tip will help others, as well. 
​
Alan A. Lew
Editor-in-Chief
Tourism Geographies

Update 24 May 2016 - METHODOLOGY & OTHER ISSUES: Following the guideline above will not, of course, guarantee that you will avoid a desk rejection from a Tourism Geographies editor.  Some of the other issues that our group looks for include:

• methodological rigor,
• originality and significance of the topic (including potential reader interest), and
• overall depth of thought and expository style.

In addition, each of the editors of Tourism Geographies will consider these aspects in different ways based on their knowledge of your topic. We do our best to be objective and consistent, but we are all human and inconsistencies can sometimes arise. 

Update 24 May 2016 - LACK OF OTHER RESEARCH: One indication that a paper is a case study that does not contribute to theory is when authors state that their research is significant because very few others have looked at their topic. This is made worse when the lack of other research is the one and only reason that the research paper is considered a significant contribution to the literature. Lack of research on a topic does not equal significance -- it could mean that others found the topic too insignificant to pursue. It also does not demonstrate a contribution to theory. In my experience, the use of this justification usually points to a mostly descriptive case study.

Update 8 October 2016 - "TOURISM PLACES" SPECIAL EDITION: Starting in 2017, Tourism Geographies will publish a special edition titled Tourism Places: Critical Perspectives on Tourism Development and Experiences. This special edition will feature well crafted case studies that give insight into tourism in a place, with less concern for the development of social science theory. One special edition is planned for 2017, but two or more editions may come out in future years based on demand. Additional information on the Special Edition of the journal can be found on the Author Notes page of this website.