This study provides a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of taxonomy development in Library and Information Science (LIS), covering 50 years (1974–2024) and examining 268 articles indexed in Scopus. It identifies three phases of research evolution: an early stage with limited output, a growth phase marked by methodological expansion, and a mature phase characterized by interdisciplinary and technology-driven approaches. The results show important contributors like Nickerson and Varshney, showing a change from basic classification systems to taxonomies that are based on consensus, are human-centered, and use artificial intelligence. Emerging themes include knowledge modeling, ontologies, and applications in business and information systems. By combining bibliometric mapping with systematic review techniques, this study charts the intellectual and thematic landscape of taxonomy research in LIS. The results emphasize the need for adaptable, user-centric taxonomies that align with modern digital infrastructures. These insights inform both theoretical refinement and practical innovation in taxonomy design, providing a foundation for future research across diverse knowledge domains.
AgboFJOyelereSSSuhonenJ, et al. (2021) Scientific production and thematic breakthroughs in smart learning environments: A bibliometric analysis. Smart Learning Environments8(1): 1–25.
2.
Al-DebeiMMAvisonD (2010) Developing a unified framework of the business model concept. European Journal of Information Systems19(3): 359–376.
3.
AldenderferMSBlashfieldRK (1984) Cluster Analysis. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
4.
AlshazlyAAElfatatryAMAbougabalMS (2014) Detecting defects in the software requirements specification. Alexandria Engineering Journal53(3): 513–527.
5.
ArchibugiDMichieJ (1995) The globalisation of technology: A new taxonomy. Cambridge Journal of Economics19(1): 121–140.
6.
AriaMCuccurulloC (2017) Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics11(4): 959–975.
7.
BaasJSchottenMPlumeA, et al. (2020) Scopus is a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies1(1): 377–386.
8.
BakosY (1998) The emerging role of electronic marketplaces on the Internet. Communications of the ACM41(8): 35–42.
9.
BalijepallyVMangalarajGIyengarK (2011) Are we wielding this hammer correctly? A reflective review of the application of cluster analysis in information systems research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems12(5): 375–413.
10.
BashshurRShannonGKrupinskiE, et al. (2011) The taxonomy of telemedicine. Telemedicine and e-Health17(6): 484–494.
11.
BatistaJOAlmeidaJPAZambonE, et al. (2022) Ontologically correct taxonomies by construction. Data & Knowledge Engineering139: 102012.
12.
BergerSBürgerORöglingerM (2020) Attacks on the Industrial Internet of things-development of a multi-layer taxonomy. Computers & Security93: 101790.
13.
BeydounGGarcía-SánchezFVincent-TorresCM, et al. (2013) Providing metrics and automatic enhancement for hierarchical taxonomies. Information Processing & Management49(1): 67–82.
14.
BlakemanK (2018) Bibliometrics in a digital age: Help or hindrance. Science in Progress101(3): 293–310.
15.
BloomBS (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company.
16.
BuccellaACechichAPorfiriJ, et al. (2019) Taxonomy-oriented domain analysis of GIS: A case study for paleontological software systems. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information8(6): 270.
17.
ChaudhryAS (2010) Assessment of taxonomy building tools. Electronic Library28(6): 769–788.
18.
ChaudhryASJiunTP (2005) Enhancing access to digital information resources on heritage: A case of development of a taxonomy at the integrated museum and archives system in Singapore. Journal of Documentation61(6): 751–776.
19.
ChengCPLauGTLawKH, et al. (2008) Regulation retrieval using industry specific taxonomies. Artificial Intelligence and Law16(3): 277–303.
20.
CurtisMJ (2023) How to write a scientific paper. In: The Quintessence of Basic and Clinical Research and Scientific Publishing. Singapore: Springer Nature, pp.687–694.
21.
DonthuNKumarSPandeyN, et al. (2021) Research constituents, intellectual structure, and collaboration patterns in Journal of International Marketing: An analytical retrospective. Journal of International Marketing29(2): 1–25.
22.
Dos Santos MaculanBCMAganetteEC (2018) A Teoria da Classificação Facetada na Construção de Taxonomias Facetadas (The Theory of Faceted Classification Applied to the Construction of Faceted Taxonomies). In: ONTOBRAS, pp.56–67.
23.
FiedlerKDGroverVTengJTC (1996) An empirically derived taxonomy of information technology structure and its relationship to organizational structure. Journal of Management Information Systems13(1): 9–34.
24.
FolletteWCHoutsAC (1996) Models of scientific progress and the role of theory in taxonomy development: A case study of the DSM. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology64(6): 1120–1132.
25.
FonsecaBDPFESampaioRBFonsecaMVDA, et al. (2016) Co-authorship network analysis in health research: Method and potential use. Health Research Policy and Systems14(1): 34–10.
26.
FruhwirthMRachingerMPrljaE (2020) Discovering business models of data marketplaces. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp.5738–5747. DOI: 10.24251/hicss.2020.704.
27.
FteimiNLehnerF (2018) Analysing and classifying knowledge management publications–A proposed classification scheme. Journal of Knowledge Management22(7): 1527–1554.
28.
GaitanouPAndreouISiciliaMA, et al. (2022) Linked data for libraries: Creating a global knowledge space, a systematic literature review. Journal of Information Science50(1): 204–244.
GnoliC (2020) Faceted classification: A guide to theory and practice. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice8(1): 1–16.
31.
GrafAM (2020) Domain analysis applied to online graffiti art image galleries to reveal knowledge organization structures used within an outsider art community. Knowledge Organization47(7): 543–557.
32.
GregorS (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly30(3): 611–642.
33.
HaneltAHildebrandtBPolierJ (2015) Uncovering the role of IS in business model innovation-a taxonomy-driven approach to structure the field. DOI: 10.18151/7217345.
34.
HasibuanZA (2011) An overview of an integrated approach to digital preservation: a case study of Indonesian e-Cultural heritage and natural history information retrieval system. In: 2011 international conference on advanced computer science and information systems. IEEE.
35.
HjørlandB (2002) Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches – Traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation58(4): 422–462.
36.
IdaM (2011) XBRL extension for knowledge discovery in higher education. In: 2011 eighth international conference on fuzzy systems and knowledge discovery (FSKD), vol. 4, pp.2120–2123. IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/fskd.2011.6020064.
37.
IrfanRKhanSAbbasMA, et al. (2019) Determining influential factors and challenges in automatic taxonomy generation: A systematic literature review of techniques 1999-2016. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal24(2): n2.
38.
KambauRAHasibuanZA (2017) Concept-based multimedia information retrieval system using ontology search in cultural heritage. In: 2017 second international conference on informatics and computing (ICIC). IEEE.
39.
KoAGillaniS (2020) A research review and taxonomy development for decision support and business analytics using semantic text mining. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making19(01): 97–126.
40.
KumarS (2015) Co-authorship networks: A review of the literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management67(1): 55–73.
41.
KundischDMuntermannJOberländerAM, et al. (2022) An update for taxonomy designers: Methodological guidance from information systems research. Business & Information Systems Engineering64(4): 421–519.
42.
LinnaeusC (1735) Systema naturae, sive regna tria naturae systematice proposita per classes, ordines, genera, & species. 1st edn. Theodorum Haak, Lugduni Batavorum (Leyden). Facsimile reprinted 1964 by B. de Graff, Nieuwkoop.
43.
LiuXSongYLiuS, et al. (2012) Automatic taxonomy construction from keywords. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp.1433–1441. DOI: 10.1145/2339530.2339754.
44.
LundHØrnagerS (2016) Company taxonomy development: The case of an international emergency response organization. Aslib Journal of Information Management68(2): 193–211.
45.
LyuPLiuXYaoT (2023) A bibliometric analysis of literature on bibliometrics in recent half-century. Journal of Information Science 0(0). DOI: 10.1177/01655515231191233.
46.
McCloskeyJBulechekG (1995) Validation and coding of the NIC taxonomy structure. Image the Journal of Nursing Scholarship27(1): 43–49.
47.
MilneC (2007) Taxonomy development: Assessing the merits of contextual classification. Records Management Journal17(1): 7–16.
48.
MohamadANSylvesterACampbell-MeierJ (2024) Towards a taxonomy of research areas in open government data. Online Information Review48(1): 67–83.
49.
MukherjeeDLimWMKumarS, et al. (2022) Guidelines for advancing theory and practice through bibliometric research. Journal of Business Research148: 101–115.
50.
NickersonRMuntermannJVarshneyU, et al. (2009) Taxonomy development in information systems: Developing a taxonomy of mobile applications. In: European conference in information systems.
51.
NickersonRCVarshneyUMuntermannJ (2013) A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems22(3): 336–359.
52.
NiuJIssaRRMutisI (2015) Taxonomy development toward the domain ontology of construction contracts: A case study on AIA A201-2007. In: Ontology in the AEC industry, pp.217–250. DOI: 10.1061/9780784413906.ch10.
53.
NiuJIssaRRA (2015) Developing taxonomy for the domain ontology of construction contractual semantics: A case study on the AIA A201 document. Advanced Engineering Informatics29(3): 472–482.
54.
OberländerAMLösserBRauD (2019) Taxonomy research in information systems: A systematic assessment. In: Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Stockholm & Uppsala, Sweden, 8–14 June.
55.
OmairBAlturkiA (2020) An improved method for taxonomy development in information systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications11(4): 535–540.
56.
OsterwalderAPigneurY (2011) Business Model Generation: Ein Handbuch Für Visionäre, Spielveränderer und Herausforderer [Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers and Challengers]. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
57.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery88: 105906.
58.
PérezCTCostaD (2018) Developing a taxonomy of transportation waste in construction production processes. Built Environment Project and Asset Management8(5): 434–448.
59.
PoseyCRajaUCrosslerRE, et al. (2017) Taking stock of organisations’ protection of privacy: Categorising and assessing threats to personally identifiable information in the USA. European Journal of Information Systems26(6): 585–604.
60.
PradaniWHasibuanZASantosoHB (2022) Layered and modularized ontology architecture for Indonesian Cultural heritage (INDOCH) based on UNESCO cultural heritage taxonomy and CIDOC CRM. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology17(ccnt): 90–98.
61.
PratNComyn-WattiauIAkokaJ (2015) A taxonomy of evaluation methods for information systems artifacts. Journal of Management Information Systems32(3): 229–267.
62.
RazaUAhmadWKhanA (2018) Transformation from manufacturing process taxonomy to repair process taxonomy: A phenetic approach. Journal of Industrial Engineering International14(2): 415–428.
63.
RemaneGHaneltATeschJF, et al. (2017) The business model pattern database—A tool for systematic business model innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management21(01): 1750004.
64.
SabherwalRKingWR (1995) An empirical taxonomy of the decision-making processes concerning strategic applications of information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems11(4): 177–214.
65.
SamsudinAZHZakariaSMiahSJ, et al. (2015) Improving access to digital information resources through the development of a knowledge taxonomy. In: 2015 2nd Asia-Pacific world congress on computer science and engineering (APWC on CSE), pp.1–7. IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/APWCCSE.2015.7476129.
66.
SiaCLAl-HawamdehS (2003) Taxonomy-building tools: An investigative study. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management2(01): 63–77.
67.
SilletA (2013) Definition and use of bibliometrics in research. Soins781(781): 29–30.
68.
StantonNABoxEButlerM, et al. (2023) Using actor maps and AcciMaps for road safety investigations: Development of taxonomies and meta-analyses. Safety Science158: 105975.
69.
StrasserA (2017) Delphi method variants in information systems research: Taxonomy development and application. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods15(2): 120–133.
70.
SurwaseGSagarAKademaniBS, et al. (2011) Co-citation analysis: An overview. In: Beyond librarianship: Creativity, innovation and discovery, Mumbai, India, 16–17 September.
71.
SzopinskiDSchoormannTKundischD (2020) Criteria as a prelude for guiding taxonomy evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences.
72.
TäuscherKLaudienSM (2018) Understanding platform business models: A mixed methods study of marketplaces. European Management Journal36(3): 319–329.
73.
TeeceDJ (2010) Business models, business strategy, and innovation. Long Range Planning43(2–3): 172–194.
74.
UsmanMBrittoRBörstlerJ, et al. (2017) Taxonomies in software engineering: A systematic mapping study and a revised taxonomy development method. Information and Software Technology85: 43–59.
75.
VarshneyUMuntermannJNickersonR (2015) Towards the development of a taxonomic theory. In: Twenty-first Americas conference on information systems, Puerto Rico.
76.
VickeryBC (1960) Faceted classification: A guide to construction and use of special schemes. California: Aslib.
77.
VisserMVan EckNJWaltmanL (2021) Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, web of science, dimensions, crossref, and microsoft academic. Quantitative Science Studies2(1): 20–41.
78.
WangDHuangMWangY (2011) Analysis of the IFRS taxonomy extension mode. In: 2011 international conference on business computing and global informatization, pp.461–464. IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/bcgin.2011.121.
79.
YangAVarshneyU (2022) Mobile health evaluation: Taxonomy development and cluster analysis. Healthcare Analytics2: 100022.
80.
YangKMehoLI (2006) Citation analysis: A comparison of google scholar, scopus, and web of science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology43: 1–15. DOI: 10.1002/meet.14504301185.
81.
YazganE (2018) Development taxonomy of human risk factors for corporate sustainability in aviation sector. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology90(6): 1012–1022.
82.
ZottCAmitRMassaL (2011) The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management37(4): 1019–1042.
