DOI: 10.57760/sciencedb.28312
title: Data collection materials (including Bibliometric and thematic analysis)
title: Data collection materials (including Bibliometric and thematic analysis)

description: 220 articles were found in the first database search, 123 of which came from Scopus and 97 from Web of Science. However, Bibliometrix R tool (Biblioshiny) is limited to analysing literature from a single online database. Specifically, it can analyse only the two databases, Web of Science and Scopus, individually and cannot combine them. We utilised the R Studio tool to combine and eliminate duplicate entries in the data obtained in txt format from Web of Science and the data obtained in bib format from Scopus using code. After running the R tool code, 170 articles remained for additional screening and selection after 48 duplicate articles were removed and 2 articles were missing. The 170 records were then exported as xlsx files and added to the "Biblioshiny" Bibliometrix R tool for a comprehensive bibliometric analysis.The systematic approach of literature identification and screening was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 paradigm(Page et al., 2021), as depicted in Figure 3. After duplicate entries were removed, 170 records were left for further filtering based on the selection criteria listed in Table 1.33 records that did not meet the inclusion requirements—aside from the second criterion—were eliminated after a preliminary review of each record's title and abstract. Out of the remaining 137 entries, we were able to collect the whole texts of 120 reports for analysis. Despite our best efforts, which included both automatic (Zotero) and human (internet search) methods, we were unable to overcome the limitations that prevented us from obtaining the remaining 17 data. These limitations included limited availability, restricted access, and/or technical issues. Afterwards, the writers conducted a thorough examination of the complete text of each report based on specific criteria for inclusion and exclusion. This was done to identify any discussions that were not mentioned in the abstract. A total of 67 studies were excluded from the analysis. Out of these, 35 studies did not discuss tourist identity and instead focused on related identities that could be influenced by heritage tourism,10 examined tourist identity in the context of heritage tourism, but did not specifically focus on its construction. Lastly, 22 studies explored the construction of identity in heritage tourism, but primarily relied on surveys of local residents rather than focusing on the tourist group. Despite doing a thorough search for supplementary records by examining citations, no additional papers were discovered. Consequently, the total count of publications that were considered for thematic analysis in the review was 53. Throughout the entire selection process, the writers carefully reviewed every publication and discussed any discrepancies in their findings until they all agreed.
description: 220 articles were found in the first database search, 123 of which came from Scopus and 97 from Web of Science. However, Bibliometrix R tool (Biblioshiny) is limited to analysing literature from a single online database. Specifically, it can analyse only the two databases, Web of Science and Scopus, individually and cannot combine them. We utilised the R Studio tool to combine and eliminate duplicate entries in the data obtained in txt format from Web of Science and the data obtained in bib format from Scopus using code. After running the R tool code, 170 articles remained for additional screening and selection after 48 duplicate articles were removed and 2 articles were missing. The 170 records were then exported as xlsx files and added to the "Biblioshiny" Bibliometrix R tool for a comprehensive bibliometric analysis.The systematic approach of literature identification and screening was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 paradigm(Page et al., 2021), as depicted in Figure 3. After duplicate entries were removed, 170 records were left for further filtering based on the selection criteria listed in Table 1.33 records that did not meet the inclusion requirements—aside from the second criterion—were eliminated after a preliminary review of each record's title and abstract. Out of the remaining 137 entries, we were able to collect the whole texts of 120 reports for analysis. Despite our best efforts, which included both automatic (Zotero) and human (internet search) methods, we were unable to overcome the limitations that prevented us from obtaining the remaining 17 data. These limitations included limited availability, restricted access, and/or technical issues. Afterwards, the writers conducted a thorough examination of the complete text of each report based on specific criteria for inclusion and exclusion. This was done to identify any discussions that were not mentioned in the abstract. A total of 67 studies were excluded from the analysis. Out of these, 35 studies did not discuss tourist identity and instead focused on related identities that could be influenced by heritage tourism,10 examined tourist identity in the context of heritage tourism, but did not specifically focus on its construction. Lastly, 22 studies explored the construction of identity in heritage tourism, but primarily relied on surveys of local residents rather than focusing on the tourist group. Despite doing a thorough search for supplementary records by examining citations, no additional papers were discovered. Consequently, the total count of publications that were considered for thematic analysis in the review was 53. Throughout the entire selection process, the writers carefully reviewed every publication and discussed any discrepancies in their findings until they all agreed.