Scheduling in Remanufacturing Systems: A Bibliometric and Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global ambitions for net-zero emissions and resource circularity are propelling industry from linear “make-use-dispose”models toward closed-loop value creation. Remanufacturing, which aims to restore end-of-life products to a “like-new” condition, plays a central role in this transition. However, its stochastic inputs and complex, multi-stage processes pose significant challenges to traditional production planning methods. This study delivers an integrated overview of remanufacturing scheduling by combining a systematic bibliometric review of 190 publications (2005–2025) with a critical synthesis of modelling approaches and enabling technologies. The bibliometric results reveal five thematic clusters and a 14% annual growth rate, highlighting a shift from deterministic, shop-floor-focused models to uncertainty-aware, sustainability-oriented frameworks. The scheduling problems are formalised to capture features arising from variable core quality, multi-phase precedence, and carbon reduction goals, in both centralised and cloud-based systems. Advances in human–robot disassembly, vision-based inspection, hybrid repair, and digital testing demonstrate feedback-rich environments that increasingly integrate planning and execution. A comparative analysis shows that, while mixed-integer programming and metaheuristics perform well in small static settings, dynamic and large-scale contexts benefit from reinforcement learning and hybrid decomposition models. Finally, future directions for dynamic, collaborative, carbon-conscious, and digital-twin-driven scheduling are outlined and investigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.045 | 0.058 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".