ReviewJournal of eye movement research2026
Towards Rigorous Eye-Tracking Methodology in Interdisciplinary Fields: Insights from and Recommendations for Tourism Research.
Review in Journal of eye movement research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eye-tracking methodology represents a young but rapidly growing approach in tourism research, offering a direct window into the cognitive processes driving tourism stakeholders' behaviour. However, a critical gap remains between the rapid adoption of this tool and the methodological rigour required to interpret its neurophysiological data. This critical review synthesizes 23 empirical studies (2020-2025) from the destination marketing and branding domain to diagnose eye-tracking's state-of-the-art application. Adopting the SALSA framework (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis) augmented by PRISMA 2020 guidelines, this study systematically searched Web of Science and Scopus databases. Studies were appraised using an eight-dimensional quality rubric, assessing from theoretical grounding to experimental design to statistical rigour. Findings revealed a "tool-first" exploratory phenomenon, where the majority of studies relied on basic fixation metrics to infer complex psychological states such as "interest", when they could imply other cognitive states. Furthermore, most reviewed studies failed to control for stimulus-level confounds (e.g., luminance, AOI size) and utilized inappropriate data-handling procedures and methods, such as the absence of data cleaning and treating count and binary data as continuous data. These, coupled with transparency deficits, undermined the validity of their conclusions. Hence, a Checklist for Eye-Tracking Rigour (CETR) and a methodological decision tree were developed to guide researchers towards confirmatory and neurobiologically grounded research. Findings also provided a framework for managers/practitioners to more accurately interpret eye-tracking studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.