How publishing works in this field
Established behavioural theory frames most quantitative work here, with structural equation modelling as the dominant analysis. Reviewers expect the measurement model reported before the structural one — reliability, convergent and discriminant validity — and a sampling account that explains how respondents were reached rather than naming a platform.
The field expects practical implications. Journals want a managerial or destination-level takeaway, and a paper that ends at the theoretical contribution is routinely asked to add one. It is part of the genre rather than a concession.
What slows papers down here
Common method bias is the single most predictable reviewer objection: when the predictor and the outcome come from the same respondent at the same moment, the correlation is inflated. Procedural remedies at design — temporal separation, different sources, marker variables — are far stronger than a post-hoc test.
Single-destination generalisation is the other. One city, one resort or one hotel chain is a case, and the paper must say what it is a case of and under what conditions the finding should travel.
Worth reading next
Questions we are asked in this field
Design for it: separate the measurement of predictor and outcome in time, use more than one source where possible, include a marker variable, and protect respondent anonymity. Reporting a post-hoc single-factor test alone no longer satisfies reviewers in this field.
Yes, framed as a case. State the mechanism, the conditions under which it should hold elsewhere, and the limits. Reviewers reject single destinations presented as general findings, not single destinations as such.
Specific enough that a manager or destination body could act — who should do what, and what the expected effect is. Generic advice to "improve service quality" is routinely flagged as adding nothing.