The most common terms used as a substitute for knowledge commons in LIS were information commons and learning commons. Although, many of these references interpreted the terms as equivalents to knowledge commons (e.g., Lippincott & Skinner, 2022; Nwagwu & Matobako, 2022). This literature explores how libraries utilize information commons and learning commons as physical spaces, service models, learning and reading spaces, and spaces where rehabilitation sessions are conducted for students. It is important to acknowledge that ‘information commons’ and ‘learning commons’ have slightly different connotations within libraries and IS. Information commons often prioritize access to information technology and resources, while learning commons might focus more on collaborative learning spaces and pedagogical support.

In knowledge commons discourse, the concepts of knowledge management and knowledge production were often explored. Knowledge commons was perceived as a means of producing and managing knowledge (e.g., Nishikawa, 2020). They can also serve as platforms for new knowledge creation through collaborative efforts and information exchange. This subdomain was referenced in studying the theories of knowledge management in one resource, and the need for enhance knowledge management to help mitigate the risk of information sharing.

The policy and ethical considerations of knowledge commons is an important area of study. The resources surveyed in this literature raise issues of copyright and intellectual property, alternative rights regimes, and open access issues. Resources like those examined by Fisher and Fortmann (2010) were concerned with how data was being shared, owned, and governed within the knowledge commons, and, in this light, Peng (2013) discusses issues of open content licenses. They assume that since the knowledge commons is a shared resource and that there might be conflicts between what owns the contents and data shared. Knowledge commons theory provides a structural mechanism to disentangle these issues.

Studies of computer supported cooperative work and innovation studies address collaborative issues around information and technology. This subdomain raises questions related to open access. However, the knowledge resources examined herein are often less public or more microlevel knowledge commons as shared resources. These works emphasize the need for innovations to take place within knowledge commons. Concepts and terms like ‘innovation-centric knowledge commons’, ‘collaborative knowledge sharing’ emerge (Ramakrishnan et al., 2021). This subdomain focuses more on the technical aspects of collaboration and information technologies that might be used to support knowledge commons. The emphasis here is more on the social and organizational aspects of shared knowledge.

Various references demonstrate how knowledge commons, as shared information and resources that are collaboratively constructed, can be conceptually conflated with other concepts. These sources were so categorized often because they employed knowledge commons as synonymous with open resource, without social or collaborative sharing. For example, (Nwagwu and Matobako 2022) apply the concept to describe a technology-equipped space in the library where people have access to digital resources and develop their digital literacy skills. This use of knowledge commons, rather than technology commons, is not unique to this study, but was prevalent in libraries and universities. While LIS as a field might recognize this as a distinct meaning of the concept, it is problematic when references are mistakenly cited with the opposite implication. Other resources were so classified because they treated knowledge commons as interchangeable with learning commons, with no clarity about how knowledge is contributed or accessed. For example, (Raish and Fennewald 2016) interpreted knowledge commons as any learning space.

Other resources did not engage with knowledge commons at an analytical level; these references considered knowledge commons without defining their meaning or analyzing the commons. Repositories as knowledge commons were studied (Nishikawa, 2020) to understand how research data were governed. Although repositories were identified as a knowledge common, there was no mention of a particular repository as a common. In parallel, (Pang 2013) provides a brief understanding of knowledge commons, but analyzes primarily issues of copyright and licensing. Open licensing was suggested as an alternative, including via knowledge commons, but not explicated. (Ferreira 2012) engages with knowledge commons at a surface level, by providing a good definition of knowledge commons, citing literature relative to how they function, and articulating key challenges, based on background literature. However, this article also did not analyze the commons within the data or consider deeper aspects like governance or power dynamics. (Ferreira 2012) was an edge case for this category.

Some resources were categorized because they defined the concept of knowledge commons and could identify a knowledge commons but did not analyse it using institutional theory. (Lippincott and Skinner 2022), for example, focused on analysis of the accountability in the Next Generation Library Publishing (NGLP), a knowledge-commons for scholarly publishing, using the FOREST framework for values-driven scholarly communication. The paper identifies the actors (scholars and scholarly communication stakeholders) and that governance principles that should be implemented but does not discuss them in detail. (Kostakis and Papachristou 2014) discuss the potential of Commons-based Peer Production (CBPP) for 3D printing that enables local production in physical manufacturing. Though it does not engage substantially with theory, the authors argue that CBPP principles can enable collaborative design and empower local communities. (Fisher and Fortmann 2010) employed a non-institutional theoretical framework to analyze FLUXNET, an example of a knowledge commons where scientific communities share data and control its governance. The paper, and its framework, do not detail the commons, but rather applies design principles from the common property theory (CPR) for successful commons management.

A subset of papers engaged with meaningful knowledge commons theory, drawing primarily on the institutional grammar (Crawford & Ostrom, 1995), the IAD framework, or the governing knowledge commons (GKC) framework. Notably, (MacNaughton and Rao 2017) analyzed the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network (OCSDNet) as a knowledge commons via the IAD framework, exploring new innovative mechanisms that can enhance collaborative disaster recovery planning, knowledge management, and learning in the Caribbean. These authors deeply explored action arenas, attributes of the common, and the governance mechanisms, grounded by theory. (Ramakrishnan, Shrestha, and Soar 2021) explore the connection between knowledge commons, innovation, and knowledge management (KM). They focus on proposing a new innovation-centric knowledge commons and analyze a conceptual model for Open Innovation Commons that utilizes KM principles.