The continuous changes in the demands and expectations of touristic consumers tend to alter the market structure of the tourism industry and render it vague [1]. Innovation, seen as a means to cope with such change and uncertainty, is perceived as the main source of competitive advantage and performance in the ever-changing tourism domain [2]. Such significance of innovation for the tourism sector has attracted the attention of many researchers over time, and innovation studies in tourism have increased, especially after 2002 ^[3][4][3,4]. In the following years, the number and level of research studies increased, and by 2010, the academic literature in the field of tourism innovation had reached a level that could have competed with other industrial domains ^[5][6][5,6].

Such an improvement has endured in the following years. Nonetheless, research studies in this regard are still scattered and fragmented [7]. For instance, in some studies, the issue of tourism innovation has been associated with various issues such as ^{[8][9][10][11]}[8,9,10,11], knowledge sharing ^[12][13][12,13], business size and experience ^[14][15][14,15], innovative behavior ^{[16][17][18][19]}[16,17,18,19], entrepreneurship ^[20][21][22][20,21,22], and performance ^{[23][24][25][26]}[23,24,25,26].

Nevertheless, the field of innovation has been constantly changing and new studies have been emerging [27]. For example, Gomezelj [2], which was conducted on innovation research in tourism, identified 152 articles on this field until 2016. In Hthis study, however, a total of 234 articles are found over the period 2017–2020. This figure constitutes more than half (60 percent) of the 387 articles that have been analyzed. It indicates that tourism innovation research has a rapidly developing structure. Besides, it is unclear to what extent which study contributes to the literature and tourism application areas [28]. Although there has been an attempt to solve the problem with review studies within the last decade ^{[3][6][27][29][30][31][32]}[3,6,27,29,30,31,32], the bibliometric studies that depict the comprehensive intellectual improvement process of the innovation field in tourism are quite few ^[1][2][1,2]. Therefore, a need exists for bibliometric studies that reveal the intellectual structure of the field.

Such studies are valuable in terms of indicating the significance of the field, the development trend, showing the extent to which issues need to be studied in the future, and guiding the improvement of the field [27]. Moreover, bibliometric studies assist to reflect the research trends in that field and indicate the research trend in a particular field. This also encourages new researchers who wish to collaborate in that field ^[1][27][1,27].

2. Bibliographic Studies on Innovation in Tourism

Review studies on tourism innovation tend to attract a great deal of attention. Theoretical studies were initiated with Hjalager ^[4][6][33][4,6,60]. The researcher defined the types of tourism innovation in her study published in 2002 and examined the innovation studies that were conducted up to that time in her theoretical study published in 2010. Those studies claimed that there was little systematic and comparative empirical evidence examining the impacts of innovation on the destination and the country’s economy. In his study published as of 2015, Hjalager presented a brief, systematic and analytical account of 100 innovations that significantly affected tourism, although they were not developed directly for tourism. According to the author, many of these tourism innovations have been adapted from other sectors. Williams and Shaw [32] interpreted internationalization as both an innovation and a promoter of innovation. Medina-Muñoz et al. [30] made efforts to find responses to the questions of how to aggregate tourism innovation performances in China and Spain and how to improve innovation studies in tourism by analyzing 117 studies over the period 2000–2011. In another review, Kandampully et al. ^[34][61] asserted that creativity and innovation could have emerged in the hospitality industry with the integration of people (climate, culture) and technology (information technology, social media). In this regard, they proposed a technology hybrid business model that advocated the coexistence of these two elements. As a result, they stated that technology was essential for innovation, but technology alone was not sufficient for the innovation of an enterprise, and no need for brains that could use and direct such technology existed. In another study, Pikkemaat et al. [27], reviewing tourism innovation studies, stated that researchers should have concentrated on issues such as the impacts of innovation, eco-innovation, policy, and governance on innovations as well as open innovation processes in small businesses. In another study conducted in the same year, Bagiran Ozseker [29] published an integrated review and proposed a destination innovation process model by utilizing five types of innovation literature (cluster theory, innovation systems, network relations, knowledge management, and innovation types). With this, it aimed to expand the thoughts on the destination innovation process for tourism-related units at both local and national levels. ItThis isstudy indicated that the extent to which tourism destinations could improve their innovation capabilities. A similar integrative theoretical review was made by Trunfio and Campana ^[35][62]. The researcheuthors proposed an integrated theoretical framework for innovation in tourism destinations. The researcheauthors identified four innovations generated by communication among information and communication technologies, social capital, and tourism actors: experience co-creation, smart destinations, e-participatory governance, and social innovation. As one of the most interesting studies, Eide et al. ^[36][63] dealt with the difficulties encountered in sustaining innovations in an experience concept.  RIn this study, researchers have noticed that for an innovation to become an experience concept, some elements must be permanent, some procedures must be fixed, and the stories told about the experience must be reproducible later on. They provided a framework for comprehending the experience problem.  Montresor [28] composed a description of tourism innovation studies conducted within the last two decades. The author critically reviewed the available literature and tried to bring forth his contributions to the following literature by maintaining a synthesis of different views. Sharma et al. [31] presented a systematic review of eco-innovation studies in tourism over the period 1998–2018. As a result of the research, 403 studies were analyzed and homogeneous themes were determined. Seven research areas were identified under eco-innovation practices: Eco-efficient strategy, Green consumerism, CSR and outreach, Carbon management, Eco-labels, Management/employee engagement, Analysis, and evaluation. In another study, Li and Hsu [64] explicated the innovative behavior of working in the service industry by considering top tourism journals published over the period 1995–2014. They summarized the studies conducted on innovative business behavior and made recommendations regarding the antecedents and consequences of the EIB. Although there are many review studies on the issue of tourism innovation, it is seen that not many of them involve bibliometric studies. Upon examining top tourism journals, five studies attract attention. The first study was conducted by Gomezelj in 2016. TIn this study, the researcher obtained nine co-citation networks, or clusters by applying co-citation relations among the most cited authors. These clusters were as follows: “fundamental studies” “RBV and competitive advantage” Organization studies, Networking, Innovation in services, Innovation systems, Knowledge, Management of organizational innovation and Technology. Teixeira and Ferreira ^[38][65] examined the articles and citations related to “regional competition and tourism innovation” over the period 1900–2016. The results indicated the extent to which the intellectual structure on regional competitiveness and tourism innovation has evolved over time. Major research trends were identified, deficiencies were identified, and suggestions for future studies were presented. In the same year, Marasco et al. ^[39][66] conducted a systematic review of collaborative innovation studies in the field of tourism. Seventy-nine articles were reviewed utilizing the Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO host’s Hospitality and Tourism Complete, Emerald Management eJournals, and Sage Journals databases. Five groups of articles were identified as a result of the research study based on the qualitative thematic analysis:, co-creation, collaborative behavior of innovating firms, knowledge transfer, collaboration networks for innovation, and innovation policies. In another bibliometric study, Durán-Sánchez et al. [1] reviewed the Scopus and WoS databases and analyzed 264 and 211 studies, respectively. Hjalager was highlighted as the most influential author in the field of tourism innovation, The Tourism Management was declared as the most influential journal, whereas Spain, the UK, and Denmark held the top positions in the country rankings. Consequently, Núñez-Tabales et al. ^[40][67] provided a bibliometric analysis of research on Airbnb over the last decade and asserted that satisfaction, trust, and innovation formed the basic research links. Building on the previous review studies on tourism innovation, this study attempts to provide a comprehensive overview on the intellectual structure of innovation research in the tourism fields. More specifically, this study presents a bibliometric analysis of 387 research studies, which was published over the period 1975–2021 and cited in SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI indexes of WoS.