Thoughts on core–periphery and small island tourism

    Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    It is difficult to write a post-publication piece about a paper without falling into the trap of conducting a post-publication review of the paper, an action which could be construed as unfair and inappropriate, given the fact that the paper in question has already been reviewed, revised (presumably) and found acceptable for publication by anonymous reviewers and the journal editor. However, a few papers, and particularly those which deal with concepts such as those in David Weaver's paper entitled 'Core-periphery relationships and the sustainability paradox of small island tourism', published in Tourism Recreation Research, Volume 42, no. 1, pp. 11-21, resolve all issues and questions, and good papers, like this one (in my opinion), raise questions and issues which deserve further commentary and perhaps elaboration or questioning. Thus, I have approached this task from the point of view of having read the paper, found it interesting and challenging and felt that it raised some interesting issues that warrant some discussion. Knowing the author personally, I am fairly sure that his will take the following comments in a positive manner and see them as an expansion of his paper and its ideas rather than as a pure critique.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages537-539
    Number of pages3
    JournalTourism Recreation Research
    Volume42
    Issue number4
    Early online date11 Aug 2017
    DOIs
    Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 11 Aug 2017

    Fingerprint

    tourism
    Tourism
    weaver
    sustainability
    recreation
    editor
    Core-periphery
    opinion
    Paradox
    Elaboration
    Warrants
    Trap
    Recreation
    Sustainability

    Keywords

    • small island tourism
    • tourists

    Cite this

    @article{3547c34d11b84eda82d6139c2a426ead,
    title = "Thoughts on core–periphery and small island tourism",
    abstract = "It is difficult to write a post-publication piece about a paper without falling into the trap of conducting a post-publication review of the paper, an action which could be construed as unfair and inappropriate, given the fact that the paper in question has already been reviewed, revised (presumably) and found acceptable for publication by anonymous reviewers and the journal editor. However, a few papers, and particularly those which deal with concepts such as those in David Weaver's paper entitled 'Core-periphery relationships and the sustainability paradox of small island tourism', published in Tourism Recreation Research, Volume 42, no. 1, pp. 11-21, resolve all issues and questions, and good papers, like this one (in my opinion), raise questions and issues which deserve further commentary and perhaps elaboration or questioning. Thus, I have approached this task from the point of view of having read the paper, found it interesting and challenging and felt that it raised some interesting issues that warrant some discussion. Knowing the author personally, I am fairly sure that his will take the following comments in a positive manner and see them as an expansion of his paper and its ideas rather than as a pure critique.",
    keywords = "small island tourism, tourists",
    author = "Butler, {R. W.}",
    year = "2017",
    month = "8",
    day = "11",
    doi = "10.1080/02508281.2017.1359958",
    language = "English",
    volume = "42",
    pages = "537--539",
    journal = "Tourism Recreation Research",
    issn = "0250-8281",
    number = "4",

    }

    Thoughts on core–periphery and small island tourism. / Butler, R. W.

    In: Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 42, No. 4, 11.08.2017, p. 537-539.

    Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Thoughts on core–periphery and small island tourism

    AU - Butler, R. W.

    PY - 2017/8/11

    Y1 - 2017/8/11

    N2 - It is difficult to write a post-publication piece about a paper without falling into the trap of conducting a post-publication review of the paper, an action which could be construed as unfair and inappropriate, given the fact that the paper in question has already been reviewed, revised (presumably) and found acceptable for publication by anonymous reviewers and the journal editor. However, a few papers, and particularly those which deal with concepts such as those in David Weaver's paper entitled 'Core-periphery relationships and the sustainability paradox of small island tourism', published in Tourism Recreation Research, Volume 42, no. 1, pp. 11-21, resolve all issues and questions, and good papers, like this one (in my opinion), raise questions and issues which deserve further commentary and perhaps elaboration or questioning. Thus, I have approached this task from the point of view of having read the paper, found it interesting and challenging and felt that it raised some interesting issues that warrant some discussion. Knowing the author personally, I am fairly sure that his will take the following comments in a positive manner and see them as an expansion of his paper and its ideas rather than as a pure critique.

    AB - It is difficult to write a post-publication piece about a paper without falling into the trap of conducting a post-publication review of the paper, an action which could be construed as unfair and inappropriate, given the fact that the paper in question has already been reviewed, revised (presumably) and found acceptable for publication by anonymous reviewers and the journal editor. However, a few papers, and particularly those which deal with concepts such as those in David Weaver's paper entitled 'Core-periphery relationships and the sustainability paradox of small island tourism', published in Tourism Recreation Research, Volume 42, no. 1, pp. 11-21, resolve all issues and questions, and good papers, like this one (in my opinion), raise questions and issues which deserve further commentary and perhaps elaboration or questioning. Thus, I have approached this task from the point of view of having read the paper, found it interesting and challenging and felt that it raised some interesting issues that warrant some discussion. Knowing the author personally, I am fairly sure that his will take the following comments in a positive manner and see them as an expansion of his paper and its ideas rather than as a pure critique.

    KW - small island tourism

    KW - tourists

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027367394&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1080/02508281.2017.1359958

    DO - 10.1080/02508281.2017.1359958

    M3 - Comment/debate

    VL - 42

    SP - 537

    EP - 539

    JO - Tourism Recreation Research

    T2 - Tourism Recreation Research

    JF - Tourism Recreation Research

    SN - 0250-8281

    IS - 4

    ER -