Industry 5.0 in Informatics: Bibliometric Analysis of Human‑Centric Automation with Cross‑Country Collaboration and Funding Agency Mapping
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58812/wsis.v3i10.2298Keywords:
Industry 5.0, Human-Centric Automation, Informatics, Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things, Bibliometric AnalysisAbstract
This paper examines the conceptual and collaborative framework of Industry 5.0 in informatics, concentrating on the growing paradigm of human-centric automation. This research employs a bibliometric analysis of publications indexed in the Scopus database from 2016 to 2025 to investigate publication trends, thematic progression, international collaborations, and contributions from funding agencies. Data were examined using Bibliometrix (R) and VOSviewer to illustrate co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, and institutional networks. The findings indicate that Industry 5.0 research is transitioning from a focus on technology issues—like automation and cyber-physical systems—to a comprehensive framework that prioritizes human-machine collaboration, sustainability, and ethical innovation. Principal theme clusters focus on artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, ergonomics, and decision-making, constituting the intellectual foundation of human-centric informatics. European and Asian nations, notably Italy, the United Kingdom, India, and China, lead in scientific output, bolstered by robust institutional collaboration and varied funding mechanisms. The research offers novel perspectives on how informatics facilitates the shift towards human-centered industrial ecosystems, integrating engineering, data science, and social innovation. The results advance the theoretical framework of Industry 5.0 as a socio-technical system and provide practical recommendations for policymakers, researchers, and funding bodies in promoting sustainable and equitable digital transformation.
References
[1] S. Nahavandi, “Industry 5.0—A human-centric solution,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 16, p. 4371, 2019.
[2] K. A. Demir, G. Döven, and B. Sezen, “Industry 5.0 and human-robot co-working,” Procedia Comput Sci, vol. 158, pp. 688–695, 2019.
[3] C. Zhang, Y. Xu, and Y. Zheng, “Blockchain Traceability Adoption in Low-Carbon Supply Chains: An Evolutionary Game Analysis,” Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 5, p. 1817, 2024.
[4] A. Akundi, D. Euresti, S. Luna, W. Ankobiah, A. Lopes, and I. Edinbarough, “State of Industry 5.0—Analysis and identification of current research trends,” Applied System Innovation, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 27, 2022.
[5] M. Longo et al., “Impacts of degradation on water, energy, and carbon cycling of the Amazon tropical forests,” J Geophys Res Biogeosci, vol. 125, no. 8, p. e2020JG005677, 2020.
[6] P. K. R. Maddikunta et al., “Industry 5.0: A survey on enabling technologies and potential applications,” J Ind Inf Integr, vol. 26, p. 100257, 2022.
[7] M. Javaid, A. Haleem, R. P. Singh, S. Khan, and R. Suman, “Blockchain technology applications for Industry 4.0: A literature-based review,” Blockchain: Research and Applications, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 100027, 2021.
[8] A. K. Nicos Sykianaskis, Persefoni Polychronidou, Economic and Financial Challenges for Eastern Europe. 2017.
[9] M. Breque, L. De Nul, and A. Petridis, “Industry 5.0: towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry,” Luxembourg, LU: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, vol. 46, 2021.
[10] S. K. Pathak, V. V Tyagi, K. Chopra, R. Rejikumar, and A. K. Pandey, “Integration of emerging PCMs and nano-enhanced PCMs with different solar water heating systems for sustainable energy future: a systematic review,” Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, vol. 254, p. 112237, 2023.
[11] A. Rejeb, K. Rejeb, A. Appolloni, H. Treiblmaier, and M. Iranmanesh, “Exploring the impact of ChatGPT on education: A web mining and machine learning approach,” The International Journal of Management Education, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 100932, 2024.
[12] J. Barata and I. Kayser, “Industry 5.0–past, present, and near future,” Procedia Comput Sci, vol. 219, pp. 778–788, 2023.
[13] N. Donthu, S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, and W. M. Lim, “How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines,” J Bus Res, vol. 133, pp. 285–296, 2021.
[14] B. G. Feagan et al., “Guselkumab plus golimumab combination therapy versus guselkumab or golimumab monotherapy in patients with ulcerative colitis (VEGA): a randomised, double-blind, controlled, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial,” Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 307–320, 2023.
[15] M. J. Cobo, A. G. López‐Herrera, E. Herrera‐Viedma, and F. Herrera, “Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools,” Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 1382–1402, 2011.
[16] F. J. Martínez-López, J. M. Merigó, L. Valenzuela-Fernández, and C. Nicolás, “Fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing: a bibliometric analysis,” Eur J Mark, vol. 52, no. 1/2, pp. 439–468, 2018.
[17] M. Aria and C. Cuccurullo, “bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis,” J Informetr, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 959–975, 2017.
[18] N. Van Eck and L. Waltman, “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 523–538, 2010.
[19] X. Xie, X. Liu, and J. Chen, “A meta-analysis of the relationship between collaborative innovation and innovation performance: The role of formal and informal institutions,” Technovation, vol. 124, p. 102740, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102740.
[20] A. Adel, “Future of industry 5.0 in society: human-centric solutions, challenges and prospective research areas,” Journal of Cloud Computing, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 40, 2022.
[21] F. Longo, A. Padovano, and S. Umbrello, “Value-oriented and ethical technology engineering in industry 5.0: A human-centric perspective for the design of the factory of the future,” Applied sciences, vol. 10, no. 12, p. 4182, 2020.
[22] Y. Lu et al., “Outlook on human-centric manufacturing towards Industry 5.0,” J Manuf Syst, vol. 62, pp. 612–627, 2022.
[23] S. Huang, B. Wang, X. Li, P. Zheng, D. Mourtzis, and L. Wang, “Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0—Comparison, complementation and co-evolution,” J Manuf Syst, vol. 64, pp. 424–428, 2022.
[24] D. Ivanov, “The Industry 5.0 framework: viability-based integration of the resilience, sustainability, and human-centricity perspectives,” Int J Prod Res, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1683–1695, 2023.
[25] D. Mourtzis, J. Angelopoulos, and N. Panopoulos, “A Literature Review of the Challenges and Opportunities of the Transition from Industry 4.0 to Society 5.0,” Energies (Basel), vol. 15, no. 17, p. 6276, 2022.
[26] D. G. Broo, O. Kaynak, and S. M. Sait, “Rethinking engineering education at the age of industry 5.0,” J Ind Inf Integr, vol. 25, p. 100311, 2022.
[27] S. Grabowska, S. Saniuk, and B. Gajdzik, “Industry 5.0: improving humanization and sustainability of Industry 4.0,” Scientometrics, vol. 127, no. 6, pp. 3117–3144, 2022.
[28] D. Romero and J. Stahre, “Towards the resilient operator 5.0: The future of work in smart resilient manufacturing systems,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 104, pp. 1089–1094, 2021.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Loso Judijanto, Ruri Widuri
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Facebook 
Instagram 
Twitter 
Youtube 
westscience.journals@gmail.com