how to write a research paper to publish

• Privacy Policy

Home » How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

Table of Contents

Publishing a research paper is an important step for researchers to disseminate their findings to a wider audience and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field. Whether you are a graduate student, a postdoctoral fellow, or an established researcher, publishing a paper requires careful planning, rigorous research, and clear writing. In this process, you will need to identify a research question , conduct a thorough literature review , design a methodology, analyze data, and draw conclusions. Additionally, you will need to consider the appropriate journals or conferences to submit your work to and adhere to their guidelines for formatting and submission. In this article, we will discuss some ways to publish your Research Paper.

How to Publish a Research Paper

To Publish a Research Paper follow the guide below:

• Conduct original research : Conduct thorough research on a specific topic or problem. Collect data, analyze it, and draw conclusions based on your findings.
• Write the paper : Write a detailed paper describing your research. It should include an abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
• Choose a suitable journal or conference : Look for a journal or conference that specializes in your research area. You can check their submission guidelines to ensure your paper meets their requirements.
• Prepare your submission: Follow the guidelines and prepare your submission, including the paper, abstract, cover letter, and any other required documents.
• Submit the paper: Submit your paper online through the journal or conference website. Make sure you meet the submission deadline.
• Peer-review process : Your paper will be reviewed by experts in the field who will provide feedback on the quality of your research, methodology, and conclusions.
• Revisions : Based on the feedback you receive, revise your paper and resubmit it.
• Acceptance : Once your paper is accepted, you will receive a notification from the journal or conference. You may need to make final revisions before the paper is published.
• Publication : Your paper will be published online or in print. You can also promote your work through social media or other channels to increase its visibility.

How to Choose Journal for Research Paper Publication

Here are some steps to follow to help you select an appropriate journal:

• Identify your research topic and audience : Your research topic and intended audience should guide your choice of journal. Identify the key journals in your field of research and read the scope and aim of the journal to determine if your paper is a good fit.
• Analyze the journal’s impact and reputation : Check the impact factor and ranking of the journal, as well as its acceptance rate and citation frequency. A high-impact journal can give your paper more visibility and credibility.
• Consider the journal’s publication policies : Look for the journal’s publication policies such as the word count limit, formatting requirements, open access options, and submission fees. Make sure that you can comply with the requirements and that the journal is in line with your publication goals.
• Look at recent publications : Review recent issues of the journal to evaluate whether your paper would fit in with the journal’s current content and style.
• Seek advice from colleagues and mentors: Ask for recommendations and suggestions from your colleagues and mentors in your field, especially those who have experience publishing in the same or similar journals.
• Be prepared to make changes : Be prepared to revise your paper according to the requirements and guidelines of the chosen journal. It is also important to be open to feedback from the editor and reviewers.

List of Journals for Research Paper Publications

There are thousands of academic journals covering various fields of research. Here are some of the most popular ones, categorized by field:

General/Multidisciplinary

• Nature: https://www.nature.com/
• Science: https://www.sciencemag.org/
• PLOS ONE: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
• Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): https://www.pnas.org/
• The Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/
• JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama

Social Sciences/Humanities

• Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp
• Journal of Consumer Research: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/jcr
• Journal of Educational Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/edu
• Journal of Applied Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl
• Journal of Communication: https://academic.oup.com/joc
• American Journal of Political Science: https://ajps.org/
• Journal of International Business Studies: https://www.jibs.net/
• Journal of Marketing Research: https://www.ama.org/journal-of-marketing-research/

Natural Sciences

• Journal of Biological Chemistry: https://www.jbc.org/
• Cell: https://www.cell.com/
• Science Advances: https://advances.sciencemag.org/
• Chemical Reviews: https://pubs.acs.org/journal/chreay
• Angewandte Chemie: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15213765
• Physical Review Letters: https://journals.aps.org/prl/
• Journal of Geophysical Research: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/2156531X
• Journal of High Energy Physics: https://link.springer.com/journal/13130

Engineering/Technology

• IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=5962385
• IEEE Transactions on Power Systems: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=59
• IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=42
• IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=87
• Journal of Engineering Mechanics: https://ascelibrary.org/journal/jenmdt
• Journal of Materials Science: https://www.springer.com/journal/10853
• Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jcej
• Journal of Mechanical Design: https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign

Medical/Health Sciences

• New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/
• The BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal): https://www.bmj.com/
• Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama
• Annals of Internal Medicine: https://www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim
• American Journal of Epidemiology: https://academic.oup.com/aje
• Journal of Clinical Oncology: https://ascopubs.org/journal/jco
• Journal of Infectious Diseases: https://academic.oup.com/jid

List of Conferences for Research Paper Publications

There are many conferences that accept research papers for publication. The specific conferences you should consider will depend on your field of research. Here are some suggestions for conferences in a few different fields:

Computer Science and Information Technology:

• IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM): https://www.ieee-infocom.org/
• ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Data Communication: https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/
• IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP): https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP/
• ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS): https://www.sigsac.org/ccs/
• ACM Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (CHI): https://chi2022.acm.org/

Engineering:

• IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA): https://www.ieee-icra.org/
• International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAE): http://www.icmae.org/
• International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering (ICCEE): http://www.iccee.org/
• International Conference on Materials Science and Engineering (ICMSE): http://www.icmse.org/
• International Conference on Energy and Power Engineering (ICEPE): http://www.icepe.org/

Natural Sciences:

• American Chemical Society National Meeting & Exposition: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/meetings/national-meeting.html
• American Physical Society March Meeting: https://www.aps.org/meetings/march/
• International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology (ICEST): http://www.icest.org/
• International Conference on Natural Science and Environment (ICNSE): http://www.icnse.org/
• International Conference on Life Science and Biological Engineering (LSBE): http://www.lsbe.org/

Social Sciences:

• Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA): https://www.asanet.org/annual-meeting-2022
• International Conference on Social Science and Humanities (ICSSH): http://www.icssh.org/
• International Conference on Psychology and Behavioral Sciences (ICPBS): http://www.icpbs.org/
• International Conference on Education and Social Science (ICESS): http://www.icess.org/
• International Conference on Management and Information Science (ICMIS): http://www.icmis.org/

How to Publish a Research Paper in Journal

Publishing a research paper in a journal is a crucial step in disseminating scientific knowledge and contributing to the field. Here are the general steps to follow:

• Choose a research topic : Select a topic of your interest and identify a research question or problem that you want to investigate. Conduct a literature review to identify the gaps in the existing knowledge that your research will address.
• Conduct research : Develop a research plan and methodology to collect data and conduct experiments. Collect and analyze data to draw conclusions that address the research question.
• Write a paper: Organize your findings into a well-structured paper with clear and concise language. Your paper should include an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use academic language and provide references for your sources.
• Choose a journal: Choose a journal that is relevant to your research topic and audience. Consider factors such as impact factor, acceptance rate, and the reputation of the journal.
• Follow journal guidelines : Review the submission guidelines and formatting requirements of the journal. Follow the guidelines carefully to ensure that your paper meets the journal’s requirements.
• Submit your paper : Submit your paper to the journal through the online submission system or by email. Include a cover letter that briefly explains the significance of your research and why it is suitable for the journal.
• Wait for reviews: Your paper will be reviewed by experts in the field. Be prepared to address their comments and make revisions to your paper.
• Revise and resubmit: Make revisions to your paper based on the reviewers’ comments and resubmit it to the journal. If your paper is accepted, congratulations! If not, consider revising and submitting it to another journal.
• Address reviewer comments : Reviewers may provide comments and suggestions for revisions to your paper. Address these comments carefully and thoughtfully to improve the quality of your paper.
• Submit the final version: Once your revisions are complete, submit the final version of your paper to the journal. Be sure to follow any additional formatting guidelines and requirements provided by the journal.
• Publication : If your paper is accepted, it will be published in the journal. Some journals provide online publication while others may publish a print version. Be sure to cite your published paper in future research and communicate your findings to the scientific community.

How to Publish a Research Paper for Students

Here are some steps you can follow to publish a research paper as an Under Graduate or a High School Student:

• Select a topic: Choose a topic that is relevant and interesting to you, and that you have a good understanding of.
• Conduct research : Gather information and data on your chosen topic through research, experiments, surveys, or other means.
• Write the paper : Start with an outline, then write the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion sections of the paper. Be sure to follow any guidelines provided by your instructor or the journal you plan to submit to.
• Edit and revise: Review your paper for errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Ask a peer or mentor to review your paper and provide feedback for improvement.
• Choose a journal : Look for journals that publish papers in your field of study and that are appropriate for your level of research. Some popular journals for students include PLOS ONE, Nature, and Science.
• Submit the paper: Follow the submission guidelines for the journal you choose, which typically include a cover letter, abstract, and formatting requirements. Be prepared to wait several weeks to months for a response.
• Address feedback : If your paper is accepted with revisions, address the feedback from the reviewers and resubmit your paper. If your paper is rejected, review the feedback and consider revising and resubmitting to a different journal.

How to Publish a Research Paper for Free

Publishing a research paper for free can be challenging, but it is possible. Here are some steps you can take to publish your research paper for free:

• Choose a suitable open-access journal: Look for open-access journals that are relevant to your research area. Open-access journals allow readers to access your paper without charge, so your work will be more widely available.
• Check the journal’s reputation : Before submitting your paper, ensure that the journal is reputable by checking its impact factor, publication history, and editorial board.
• Follow the submission guidelines : Every journal has specific guidelines for submitting papers. Make sure to follow these guidelines carefully to increase the chances of acceptance.
• Submit your paper : Once you have completed your research paper, submit it to the journal following their submission guidelines.
• Wait for the review process: Your paper will undergo a peer-review process, where experts in your field will evaluate your work. Be patient during this process, as it can take several weeks or even months.
• Revise your paper : If your paper is rejected, don’t be discouraged. Revise your paper based on the feedback you receive from the reviewers and submit it to another open-access journal.
• Promote your research: Once your paper is published, promote it on social media and other online platforms. This will increase the visibility of your work and help it reach a wider audience.

Journals and Conferences for Free Research Paper publications

Here are the websites of the open-access journals and conferences mentioned:

Open-Access Journals:

• PLOS ONE – https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
• BMC Research Notes – https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/
• Frontiers in… – https://www.frontiersin.org/
• Journal of Open Research Software – https://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/
• PeerJ – https://peerj.com/

Conferences:

• IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) – https://globecom2022.ieee-globecom.org/
• IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) – https://infocom2022.ieee-infocom.org/
• IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) – https://www.ieee-icdm.org/
• ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Data Communication (SIGCOMM) – https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/
• ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) – https://www.sigsac.org/ccs/CCS2022/

Importance of Research Paper Publication

Research paper publication is important for several reasons, both for individual researchers and for the scientific community as a whole. Here are some reasons why:

• Advancing scientific knowledge : Research papers provide a platform for researchers to present their findings and contribute to the body of knowledge in their field. These papers often contain novel ideas, experimental data, and analyses that can help to advance scientific understanding.
• Building a research career : Publishing research papers is an essential component of building a successful research career. Researchers are often evaluated based on the number and quality of their publications, and having a strong publication record can increase one’s chances of securing funding, tenure, or a promotion.
• Peer review and quality control: Publication in a peer-reviewed journal means that the research has been scrutinized by other experts in the field. This peer review process helps to ensure the quality and validity of the research findings.
• Recognition and visibility : Publishing a research paper can bring recognition and visibility to the researchers and their work. It can lead to invitations to speak at conferences, collaborations with other researchers, and media coverage.
• Impact on society : Research papers can have a significant impact on society by informing policy decisions, guiding clinical practice, and advancing technological innovation.

Advantages of Research Paper Publication

There are several advantages to publishing a research paper, including:

• Recognition: Publishing a research paper allows researchers to gain recognition for their work, both within their field and in the academic community as a whole. This can lead to new collaborations, invitations to conferences, and other opportunities to share their research with a wider audience.
• Career advancement : A strong publication record can be an important factor in career advancement, particularly in academia. Publishing research papers can help researchers secure funding, grants, and promotions.
• Dissemination of knowledge : Research papers are an important way to share new findings and ideas with the broader scientific community. By publishing their research, scientists can contribute to the collective body of knowledge in their field and help advance scientific understanding.
• Feedback and peer review : Publishing a research paper allows other experts in the field to provide feedback on the research, which can help improve the quality of the work and identify potential flaws or limitations. Peer review also helps ensure that research is accurate and reliable.
• Citation and impact : Published research papers can be cited by other researchers, which can help increase the impact and visibility of the research. High citation rates can also help establish a researcher’s reputation and credibility within their field.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Context of the Study – Writing Guide and Examples

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and...

Future Research – Thesis Guide

Chapter Summary & Overview – Writing Guide...

Research Paper Introduction – Writing Guide and...

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing
• Research Papers

How to Write and Publish Your Research in a Journal

Last Updated: May 26, 2024 Fact Checked

Choosing a Journal

Writing the research paper, editing & revising your paper, submitting your paper, navigating the peer review process, research paper help.

This article was co-authored by Matthew Snipp, PhD and by wikiHow staff writer, Cheyenne Main . C. Matthew Snipp is the Burnet C. and Mildred Finley Wohlford Professor of Humanities and Sciences in the Department of Sociology at Stanford University. He is also the Director for the Institute for Research in the Social Science’s Secure Data Center. He has been a Research Fellow at the U.S. Bureau of the Census and a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He has published 3 books and over 70 articles and book chapters on demography, economic development, poverty and unemployment. He is also currently serving on the National Institute of Child Health and Development’s Population Science Subcommittee. He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Wisconsin—Madison. There are 13 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 705,093 times.

Publishing a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal allows you to network with other scholars, get your name and work into circulation, and further refine your ideas and research. Before submitting your paper, make sure it reflects all the work you’ve done and have several people read over it and make comments. Keep reading to learn how you can choose a journal, prepare your work for publication, submit it, and revise it after you get a response back.

Things You Should Know

• Create a list of journals you’d like to publish your work in and choose one that best aligns with your topic and your desired audience.
• Prepare your manuscript using the journal’s requirements and ask at least 2 professors or supervisors to review your paper.
• Write a cover letter that “sells” your manuscript, says how your research adds to your field and explains why you chose the specific journal you’re submitting to.

• Ask your professors or supervisors for well-respected journals that they’ve had good experiences publishing with and that they read regularly.
• Many journals also only accept specific formats, so by choosing a journal before you start, you can write your article to their specifications and increase your chances of being accepted.
• If you’ve already written a paper you’d like to publish, consider whether your research directly relates to a hot topic or area of research in the journals you’re looking into.

• Review the journal’s peer review policies and submission process to see if you’re comfortable creating or adjusting your work according to their standards.
• Open-access journals can increase your readership because anyone can access them.

• Scientific research papers: Instead of a “thesis,” you might write a “research objective” instead. This is where you state the purpose of your research.
• “This paper explores how George Washington’s experiences as a young officer may have shaped his views during difficult circumstances as a commanding officer.”
• “This paper contends that George Washington’s experiences as a young officer on the 1750s Pennsylvania frontier directly impacted his relationship with his Continental Army troops during the harsh winter at Valley Forge.”

• Scientific research papers: Include a “materials and methods” section with the step-by-step process you followed and the materials you used. [5] X Research source
• Read other research papers in your field to see how they’re written. Their format, writing style, subject matter, and vocabulary can help guide your own paper. [6] X Research source

• If you’re writing about George Washington’s experiences as a young officer, you might emphasize how this research changes our perspective of the first president of the U.S.
• Link this section to your thesis or research objective.
• If you’re writing a paper about ADHD, you might discuss other applications for your research.

• Scientific research papers: You might include your research and/or analytical methods, your main findings or results, and the significance or implications of your research.
• Try to get as many people as you can to read over your abstract and provide feedback before you submit your paper to a journal.

• They might also provide templates to help you structure your manuscript according to their specific guidelines. [11] X Research source

• Not all journal reviewers will be experts on your specific topic, so a non-expert “outsider’s perspective” can be valuable.

• If you have a paper on the purification of wastewater with fungi, you might use both the words “fungi” and “mushrooms.”
• Use software like iThenticate, Turnitin, or PlagScan to check for similarities between the submitted article and published material available online. [15] X Research source

• Header: Address the editor who will be reviewing your manuscript by their name, include the date of submission, and the journal you are submitting to.
• First paragraph: Include the title of your manuscript, the type of paper it is (like review, research, or case study), and the research question you wanted to answer and why.
• Second paragraph: Explain what was done in your research, your main findings, and why they are significant to your field.
• Third paragraph: Explain why the journal’s readers would be interested in your work and why your results are important to your field.
• Conclusion: State the author(s) and any journal requirements that your work complies with (like ethical standards”).
• “We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal.”
• “All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to [insert the name of the target journal].”

• Submit your article to only one journal at a time.
• When submitting online, use your university email account. This connects you with a scholarly institution, which can add credibility to your work.

• Accept: Only minor adjustments are needed, based on the provided feedback by the reviewers. A first submission will rarely be accepted without any changes needed.
• Revise and Resubmit: Changes are needed before publication can be considered, but the journal is still very interested in your work.
• Reject and Resubmit: Extensive revisions are needed. Your work may not be acceptable for this journal, but they might also accept it if significant changes are made.
• Reject: The paper isn’t and won’t be suitable for this publication, but that doesn’t mean it might not work for another journal.

• Try organizing the reviewer comments by how easy it is to address them. That way, you can break your revisions down into more manageable parts.
• If you disagree with a comment made by a reviewer, try to provide an evidence-based explanation when you resubmit your paper.

• If you’re resubmitting your paper to the same journal, include a point-by-point response paper that talks about how you addressed all of the reviewers’ comments in your revision. [22] X Research source
• If you’re not sure which journal to submit to next, you might be able to ask the journal editor which publications they recommend.

Expert Q&A

You might also like.

• If reviewers suspect that your submitted manuscript plagiarizes another work, they may refer to a Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowchart to see how to move forward. [23] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

• ↑ https://www.wiley.com/en-us/network/publishing/research-publishing/choosing-a-journal/6-steps-to-choosing-the-right-journal-for-your-research-infographic
• ↑ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z
• ↑ https://libguides.unomaha.edu/c.php?g=100510&p=651627
• ↑ https://www.canberra.edu.au/library/start-your-research/research_help/publishing-research
• ↑ https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/conclusions
• ↑ https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/assignments/writing-an-abstract-for-your-research-paper/
• ↑ https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/book-authors-editors/your-publication-journey/manuscript-preparation
• ↑ https://apus.libanswers.com/writing/faq/2391
• ↑ https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/search-strategy
• ↑ https://ifis.libguides.com/journal-publishing-guide/submitting-your-paper
• ↑ https://www.springer.com/kr/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/submitting-to-a-journal-and-peer-review/cover-letters/10285574
• ↑ https://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/publish.aspx
• ↑ Matthew Snipp, PhD. Research Fellow, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Expert Interview. 26 March 2020.

About This Article

To publish a research paper, ask a colleague or professor to review your paper and give you feedback. Once you've revised your work, familiarize yourself with different academic journals so that you can choose the publication that best suits your paper. Make sure to look at the "Author's Guide" so you can format your paper according to the guidelines for that publication. Then, submit your paper and don't get discouraged if it is not accepted right away. You may need to revise your paper and try again. To learn about the different responses you might get from journals, see our reviewer's explanation below. Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

RAMDEV GOHIL

Oct 16, 2017

Did this article help you?

David Okandeji

Oct 23, 2019

Revati Joshi

Feb 13, 2017

Shahzad Khan

Jul 1, 2017

Apr 7, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

Home → Get Published → How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

Jordan Kruszynski

• January 4, 2024

You’re in academia.

You’re going steady.

Your research is going well and you begin to wonder: ‘ How exactly do I get a research paper published?’

If this is the question on your lips, then this step-by-step guide is the one for you. We’ll be walking you through the whole process of how to publish a research paper.

Publishing a research paper is a significant milestone for researchers and academics, as it allows you to share your findings, contribute to your field of study, and start to gain serious recognition within the wider academic community. So, want to know how to publish a research paper? By following our guide, you’ll get a firm grasp of the steps involved in this process, giving you the best chance of successfully navigating the publishing process and getting your work out there.

Understanding the Publishing Process

To begin, it’s crucial to understand that getting a research paper published is a multi-step process. From beginning to end, it could take as little as 2 months before you see your paper nestled in the pages of your chosen journal. On the other hand, it could take as long as a year .

Below, we set out the steps before going into more detail on each one. Getting a feel for these steps will help you to visualise what lies ahead, and prepare yourself for each of them in turn. It’s important to remember that you won’t actually have control over every step – in fact, some of them will be decided by people you’ll probably never meet. However, knowing which parts of the process are yours to decide will allow you to adjust your approach and attitude accordingly.

Each of the following stages will play a vital role in the eventual publication of your paper:

• Preparing Your Research Paper
• Finding the Right Journal
• Crafting a Strong Manuscript
• Navigating the Peer-Review Process
• Submitting Your Paper
• Dealing with Rejections and Revising Your Paper

Step 1: Preparing Your Research Paper

It all starts here. The quality and content of your research paper is of fundamental importance if you want to get it published. This step will be different for every researcher depending on the nature of your research, but if you haven’t yet settled on a topic, then consider the following advice:

• Choose an interesting and relevant topic that aligns with current trends in your field. If your research touches on the passions and concerns of your academic peers or wider society, it may be more likely to capture attention and get published successfully.
• Conduct a comprehensive literature review (link to lit. review article once it’s published) to identify the state of existing research and any knowledge gaps within it. Aiming to fill a clear gap in the knowledge of your field is a great way to increase the practicality of your research and improve its chances of getting published.
• Structure your paper in a clear and organised manner, including all the necessary sections such as title, abstract, introduction (link to the ‘how to write a research paper intro’ article once it’s published) , methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
• Adhere to the formatting guidelines provided by your target journal to ensure that your paper is accepted as viable for publishing. More on this in the next section…

Step 2: Finding the Right Journal

Understanding how to publish a research paper involves selecting the appropriate journal for your work. This step is critical for successful publication, and you should take several factors into account when deciding which journal to apply for:

• Conduct thorough research to identify journals that specialise in your field of study and have published similar research. Naturally, if you submit a piece of research in molecular genetics to a journal that specialises in geology, you won’t be likely to get very far.
• Consider factors such as the journal’s scope, impact factor, and target audience. Today there is a wide array of journals to choose from, including traditional and respected print journals, as well as numerous online, open-access endeavours. Some, like Nature , even straddle both worlds.
• Review the submission guidelines provided by the journal and ensure your paper meets all the formatting requirements and word limits. This step is key. Nature, for example, offers a highly informative series of pages that tells you everything you need to know in order to satisfy their formatting guidelines (plus more on the whole submission process).
• Note that these guidelines can differ dramatically from journal to journal, and details really do matter. You might submit an outstanding piece of research, but if it includes, for example, images in the wrong size or format, this could mean a lengthy delay to getting it published. If you get everything right first time, you’ll save yourself a lot of time and trouble, as well as strengthen your publishing chances in the first place.

Step 3: Crafting a Strong Manuscript

Crafting a strong manuscript is crucial to impress journal editors and reviewers. Look at your paper as a complete package, and ensure that all the sections tie together to deliver your findings with clarity and precision.

• Begin by creating a clear and concise title that accurately reflects the content of your paper.
• Compose an informative abstract that summarises the purpose, methodology, results, and significance of your study.
• Craft an engaging introduction (link to the research paper introduction article) that draws your reader in.
• Develop a well-structured methodology section, presenting your results effectively using tables and figures.
• Write a compelling discussion and conclusion that emphasise the significance of your findings.

Step 4: Navigating the Peer-Review Process

Once you submit your research paper to a journal, it undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to ensure its quality and validity. In peer-review, experts in your field assess your research and provide feedback and suggestions for improvement, ultimately determining whether your paper is eligible for publishing or not. You are likely to encounter several models of peer-review, based on which party – author, reviewer, or both – remains anonymous throughout the process.

When your paper undergoes the peer-review process, be prepared for constructive criticism and address the comments you receive from your reviewer thoughtfully, providing clear and concise responses to their concerns or suggestions. These could make all the difference when it comes to making your next submission.

The peer-review process can seem like a closed book at times. Check out our discussion of the issue with philosopher and academic Amna Whiston in The Research Beat podcast!

Step 5: Submitting Your Paper

As we’ve already pointed out, one of the key elements in how to publish a research paper is ensuring that you meticulously follow the journal’s submission guidelines. Strive to comply with all formatting requirements, including citation styles, font, margins, and reference structure.

Before the final submission, thoroughly proofread your paper for errors, including grammar, spelling, and any inconsistencies in your data or analysis. At this stage, consider seeking feedback from colleagues or mentors to further improve the quality of your paper.

Step 6: Dealing with Rejections and Revising Your Paper

Rejection is a common part of the publishing process, but it shouldn’t discourage you. Analyse reviewer comments objectively and focus on the constructive feedback provided. Make necessary revisions and improvements to your paper to address the concerns raised by reviewers. If needed, consider submitting your paper to a different journal that is a better fit for your research.

For more tips on how to publish your paper out there, check out this thread by Dr. Asad Naveed ( @dr_asadnaveed ) – and if you need a refresher on the basics of how to publish under the Open Access model, watch this 5-minute video from Audemic Academy !

Final Thoughts

Successfully understanding how to publish a research paper requires dedication, attention to detail, and a systematic approach. By following the advice in our guide, you can increase your chances of navigating the publishing process effectively and achieving your goal of publication.

Remember, the journey may involve revisions, peer feedback, and potential rejections, but each step is an opportunity for growth and improvement. Stay persistent, maintain a positive mindset, and continue to refine your research paper until it reaches the standards of your target journal. Your contribution to your wider discipline through published research will not only advance your career, but also add to the growing body of collective knowledge in your field. Embrace the challenges and rewards that come with the publication process, and may your research paper make a significant impact in your area of study!

Looking for inspiration for your next big paper? Head to Audemic , where you can organise and listen to all the best and latest research in your field!

Keep striving, researchers! ✨

Table of Contents

Related articles.

You’re in academia. You’re going steady. Your research is going well and you begin to wonder: ‘How exactly do I get a

Behind the Scenes: What Does a Research Assistant Do?

Have you ever wondered what goes on behind the scenes in a research lab? Does it involve acting out the whims of

How to Write a Research Paper Introduction: Hook, Line, and Sinker

Want to know how to write a research paper introduction that dazzles? Struggling to hook your reader in with your opening sentences?

Blog Podcast

Privacy policy Terms of service

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Discover more from Audemic: Access any academic research via audio

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

You are using an outdated browser . Please upgrade your browser today !

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper in 7 Steps

What comes next after you're done with your research? Publishing the results in a journal of course! We tell you how to present your work in the best way possible.

This post is part of a series, which serves to provide hands-on information and resources for authors and editors.

Things have gotten busy in scholarly publishing: These days, a new article gets published in the 50,000 most important peer-reviewed journals every few seconds, while each one takes on average 40 minutes to read. Hundreds of thousands of papers reach the desks of editors and reviewers worldwide each year and 50% of all submissions end up rejected at some stage.

In a nutshell: there is a lot of competition, and the people who decide upon the fate of your manuscript are short on time and overworked. But there are ways to make their lives a little easier and improve your own chances of getting your work published!

Well, it may seem obvious, but before submitting an academic paper, always make sure that it is an excellent reflection of the research you have done and that you present it in the most professional way possible. Incomplete or poorly presented manuscripts can create a great deal of frustration and annoyance for editors who probably won’t even bother wasting the time of the reviewers!

This post will discuss 7 steps to the successful publication of your research paper:

• Check whether your research is publication-ready
• Choose an article type
• Choose a journal
• Construct your paper
• Decide the order of authors
• Check and double-check
• Submit your paper

1. Check Whether Your Research Is Publication-Ready

Should you publish your research at all?

If your work holds academic value – of course – a well-written scholarly article could open doors to your research community. However, if you are not yet sure, whether your research is ready for publication, here are some key questions to ask yourself depending on your field of expertise:

• Have you done or found something new and interesting? Something unique?
• Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?
• Have you checked the latest results or research in the field?
• Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems?
• Have the findings been verified?
• Have the appropriate controls been performed if required?
• Are your findings comprehensive?

If the answers to all relevant questions are “yes”, you need to prepare a good, strong manuscript. Remember, a research paper is only useful if it is clearly understood, reproducible and if it is read and used .

2. Choose An Article Type

The first step is to determine which type of paper is most appropriate for your work and what you want to achieve. The following list contains the most important, usually peer-reviewed article types in the natural sciences:

Full original research papers disseminate completed research findings. On average this type of paper is 8-10 pages long, contains five figures, and 25-30 references. Full original research papers are an important part of the process when developing your career.

Review papers present a critical synthesis of a specific research topic. These papers are usually much longer than original papers and will contain numerous references. More often than not, they will be commissioned by journal editors. Reviews present an excellent way to solidify your research career.

Letters, Rapid or Short Communications are often published for the quick and early communication of significant and original advances. They are much shorter than full articles and usually limited in length by the journal. Journals specifically dedicated to short communications or letters are also published in some fields. In these the authors can present short preliminary findings before developing a full-length paper.

3. Choose a Journal

Are you looking for the right place to publish your paper? Find out here whether a De Gruyter journal might be the right fit.

Submit to journals that you already read, that you have a good feel for. If you do so, you will have a better appreciation of both its culture and the requirements of the editors and reviewers.

Other factors to consider are:

• The specific subject area
• The aims and scope of the journal
• The type of manuscript you have written
• The significance of your work
• The reputation of the journal
• The reputation of the editors within the community
• The editorial/review and production speeds of the journal
• The community served by the journal
• The coverage and distribution
• The accessibility ( open access vs. closed access)

4. Construct Your Paper

Each element of a paper has its purpose, so you should make these sections easy to index and search.

Don’t forget that requirements can differ highly per publication, so always make sure to apply a journal’s specific instructions – or guide – for authors to your manuscript, even to the first draft (text layout, paper citation, nomenclature, figures and table, etc.) It will save you time, and the editor’s.

Also, even in these days of Internet-based publishing, space is still at a premium, so be as concise as possible. As a good journalist would say: “Never use three words when one will do!”

Let’s look at the typical structure of a full research paper, but bear in mind certain subject disciplines may have their own specific requirements so check the instructions for authors on the journal’s home page.

4.1 The Title

It’s important to use the title to tell the reader what your paper is all about! You want to attract their attention, a bit like a newspaper headline does. Be specific and to the point. Keep it informative and concise, and avoid jargon and abbreviations (unless they are universally recognized like DNA, for example).

4.2 The Abstract

This could be termed as the “advertisement” for your article. Make it interesting and easily understood without the reader having to read the whole article. Be accurate and specific, and keep it as brief and concise as possible. Some journals (particularly in the medical fields) will ask you to structure the abstract in distinct, labeled sections, which makes it even more accessible.

A clear abstract will influence whether or not your work is considered and whether an editor should invest more time on it or send it for review.

4.3 Keywords

Keywords are used by abstracting and indexing services, such as PubMed and Web of Science. They are the labels of your manuscript, which make it “searchable” online by other researchers.

Include words or phrases (usually 4-8) that are closely related to your topic but not “too niche” for anyone to find them. Make sure to only use established abbreviations. Think about what scientific terms and its variations your potential readers are likely to use and search for. You can also do a test run of your selected keywords in one of the common academic search engines. Do similar articles to your own appear? Yes? Then that’s a good sign.

4.4 Introduction

This first part of the main text should introduce the problem, as well as any existing solutions you are aware of and the main limitations. Also, state what you hope to achieve with your research.

Do not confuse the introduction with the results, discussion or conclusion.

4.5 Methods

Every research article should include a detailed Methods section (also referred to as “Materials and Methods”) to provide the reader with enough information to be able to judge whether the study is valid and reproducible.

Include detailed information so that a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment. However, use references and supplementary materials to indicate previously published procedures.

4.6 Results

In this section, you will present the essential or primary results of your study. To display them in a comprehensible way, you should use subheadings as well as illustrations such as figures, graphs, tables and photos, as appropriate.

4.7 Discussion

Here you should tell your readers what the results mean .

Do state how the results relate to the study’s aims and hypotheses and how the findings relate to those of other studies. Explain all possible interpretations of your findings and the study’s limitations.

Do not make “grand statements” that are not supported by the data. Also, do not introduce any new results or terms. Moreover, do not ignore work that conflicts or disagrees with your findings. Instead …

Be brave! Address conflicting study results and convince the reader you are the one who is correct.

4.8 Conclusion

Your conclusion isn’t just a summary of what you’ve already written. It should take your paper one step further and answer any unresolved questions.

Sum up what you have shown in your study and indicate possible applications and extensions. The main question your conclusion should answer is: What do my results mean for the research field and my community?

4.9 Acknowledgments and Ethical Statements

It is extremely important to acknowledge anyone who has helped you with your paper, including researchers who supplied materials or reagents (e.g. vectors or antibodies); and anyone who helped with the writing or English, or offered critical comments about the content.

Learn more about academic integrity in our blog post “Scholarly Publication Ethics: 4 Common Mistakes You Want To Avoid” .

Remember to state why people have been acknowledged and ask their permission . Ensure that you acknowledge sources of funding, including any grant or reference numbers.

Furthermore, if you have worked with animals or humans, you need to include information about the ethical approval of your study and, if applicable, whether informed consent was given. Also, state whether you have any competing interests regarding the study (e.g. because of financial or personal relationships.)

4.10 References

The end is in sight, but don’t relax just yet!

De facto, there are often more mistakes in the references than in any other part of the manuscript. It is also one of the most annoying and time-consuming problems for editors.

Remember to cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based. But do not inflate the manuscript with too many references. Avoid excessive – and especially unnecessary – self-citations. Also, avoid excessive citations of publications from the same institute or region.

5. Decide the Order of Authors

In the sciences, the most common way to order the names of the authors is by relative contribution.

Generally, the first author conducts and/or supervises the data analysis and the proper presentation and interpretation of the results. They put the paper together and usually submit the paper to the journal.

Co-authors make intellectual contributions to the data analysis and contribute to data interpretation. They review each paper draft. All of them must be able to present the paper and its results, as well as to defend the implications and discuss study limitations.

Do not leave out authors who should be included or add “gift authors”, i.e. authors who did not contribute significantly.

6. Check and Double-Check

As a final step before submission, ask colleagues to read your work and be constructively critical .

Make sure that the paper is appropriate for the journal – take a last look at their aims and scope. Check if all of the requirements in the instructions for authors are met.

Ensure that the cited literature is balanced. Are the aims, purpose and significance of the results clear?

Conduct a final check for language, either by a native English speaker or an editing service.

7. Submit Your Paper

When you and your co-authors have double-, triple-, quadruple-checked the manuscript: submit it via e-mail or online submission system. Along with your manuscript, submit a cover letter, which highlights the reasons why your paper would appeal to the journal and which ensures that you have received approval of all authors for submission.

It is up to the editors and the peer-reviewers now to provide you with their (ideally constructive and helpful) comments and feedback. Time to take a breather!

If the paper gets rejected, do not despair – it happens to literally everybody. If the journal suggests major or minor revisions, take the chance to provide a thorough response and make improvements as you see fit. If the paper gets accepted, congrats!

It’s now time to get writing and share your hard work – good luck!

If you are interested, check out this related blog post

[Title Image by Nick Morrison via Unsplash]

David Sleeman

David Sleeman worked as Senior Journals Manager in the field of Physical Sciences at De Gruyter.

You might also be interested in

Academia & Publishing

How to Maximize Your Message Through Social Media: A Global Masterclass from Library Professionals

Taking libraries into the future, part 2: an interview with mike jones and tomasz stompor, embracing diversity, equity and inclusion: social justice and the modern university, visit our shop.

De Gruyter publishes over 1,300 new book titles each year and more than 750 journals in the humanities, social sciences, medicine, mathematics, engineering, computer sciences, natural sciences, and law.

Pin It on Pinterest

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Clara busse.

1 Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599 Chapel Hill, NC USA

Ella August

2 Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029 USA

Associated Data

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1 , we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction

Writing a scientific paper is an important component of the research process, yet researchers often receive little formal training in scientific writing. This is especially true in low-resource settings. In this article, we explain why choosing a target journal is important, give advice about authorship, provide a basic structure for writing each section of a scientific paper, and describe common pitfalls and recommendations for each section. In the online resource 1 , we also include an annotated journal article that identifies the key elements and writing approaches that we detail here. Before you begin your research, make sure you have ethical clearance from all relevant ethical review boards.

Select a Target Journal Early in the Writing Process

We recommend that you select a “target journal” early in the writing process; a “target journal” is the journal to which you plan to submit your paper. Each journal has a set of core readers and you should tailor your writing to this readership. For example, if you plan to submit a manuscript about vaping during pregnancy to a pregnancy-focused journal, you will need to explain what vaping is because readers of this journal may not have a background in this topic. However, if you were to submit that same article to a tobacco journal, you would not need to provide as much background information about vaping.

Information about a journal’s core readership can be found on its website, usually in a section called “About this journal” or something similar. For example, the Journal of Cancer Education presents such information on the “Aims and Scope” page of its website, which can be found here: https://www.springer.com/journal/13187/aims-and-scope .

Peer reviewer guidelines from your target journal are an additional resource that can help you tailor your writing to the journal and provide additional advice about crafting an effective article [ 1 ]. These are not always available, but it is worth a quick web search to find out.

Identify Author Roles Early in the Process

Early in the writing process, identify authors, determine the order of authors, and discuss the responsibilities of each author. Standard author responsibilities have been identified by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [ 2 ]. To set clear expectations about each team member’s responsibilities and prevent errors in communication, we also suggest outlining more detailed roles, such as who will draft each section of the manuscript, write the abstract, submit the paper electronically, serve as corresponding author, and write the cover letter. It is best to formalize this agreement in writing after discussing it, circulating the document to the author team for approval. We suggest creating a title page on which all authors are listed in the agreed-upon order. It may be necessary to adjust authorship roles and order during the development of the paper. If a new author order is agreed upon, be sure to update the title page in the manuscript draft.

In the case where multiple papers will result from a single study, authors should discuss who will author each paper. Additionally, authors should agree on a deadline for each paper and the lead author should take responsibility for producing an initial draft by this deadline.

Structure of the Introduction Section

The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig.  1 . Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper. Include five main elements: why your research is important, what is already known about the topic, the “gap” or what is not yet known about the topic, why it is important to learn the new information that your research adds, and the specific research aim(s) that your paper addresses. Your research aim should address the gap you identified. Be sure to add enough background information to enable readers to understand your study. Table ​ Table1 1 provides common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations

Methods Section

The purpose of the methods section is twofold: to explain how the study was done in enough detail to enable its replication and to provide enough contextual detail to enable readers to understand and interpret the results. In general, the essential elements of a methods section are the following: a description of the setting and participants, the study design and timing, the recruitment and sampling, the data collection process, the dataset, the dependent and independent variables, the covariates, the analytic approach for each research objective, and the ethical approval. The hallmark of an exemplary methods section is the justification of why each method was used. Table ​ Table2 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common methods section pitfalls and recommendations

Results Section

The focus of the results section should be associations, or lack thereof, rather than statistical tests. Two considerations should guide your writing here. First, the results should present answers to each part of the research aim. Second, return to the methods section to ensure that the analysis and variables for each result have been explained.

Begin the results section by describing the number of participants in the final sample and details such as the number who were approached to participate, the proportion who were eligible and who enrolled, and the number of participants who dropped out. The next part of the results should describe the participant characteristics. After that, you may organize your results by the aim or by putting the most exciting results first. Do not forget to report your non-significant associations. These are still findings.

Tables and figures capture the reader’s attention and efficiently communicate your main findings [ 3 ]. Each table and figure should have a clear message and should complement, rather than repeat, the text. Tables and figures should communicate all salient details necessary for a reader to understand the findings without consulting the text. Include information on comparisons and tests, as well as information about the sample and timing of the study in the title, legend, or in a footnote. Note that figures are often more visually interesting than tables, so if it is feasible to make a figure, make a figure. To avoid confusing the reader, either avoid abbreviations in tables and figures, or define them in a footnote. Note that there should not be citations in the results section and you should not interpret results here. Table ​ Table3 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common results section pitfalls and recommendations

Discussion Section

Opposite the introduction section, the discussion should take the form of a right-side-up triangle beginning with interpretation of your results and moving to general implications (Fig.  2 ). This section typically begins with a restatement of the main findings, which can usually be accomplished with a few carefully-crafted sentences.

Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Next, interpret the meaning or explain the significance of your results, lifting the reader’s gaze from the study’s specific findings to more general applications. Then, compare these study findings with other research. Are these findings in agreement or disagreement with those from other studies? Does this study impart additional nuance to well-accepted theories? Situate your findings within the broader context of scientific literature, then explain the pathways or mechanisms that might give rise to, or explain, the results.

Journals vary in their approach to strengths and limitations sections: some are embedded paragraphs within the discussion section, while some mandate separate section headings. Keep in mind that every study has strengths and limitations. Candidly reporting yours helps readers to correctly interpret your research findings.

The next element of the discussion is a summary of the potential impacts and applications of the research. Should these results be used to optimally design an intervention? Does the work have implications for clinical protocols or public policy? These considerations will help the reader to further grasp the possible impacts of the presented work.

Finally, the discussion should conclude with specific suggestions for future work. Here, you have an opportunity to illuminate specific gaps in the literature that compel further study. Avoid the phrase “future research is necessary” because the recommendation is too general to be helpful to readers. Instead, provide substantive and specific recommendations for future studies. Table ​ Table4 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations

Follow the Journal’s Author Guidelines

After you select a target journal, identify the journal’s author guidelines to guide the formatting of your manuscript and references. Author guidelines will often (but not always) include instructions for titles, cover letters, and other components of a manuscript submission. Read the guidelines carefully. If you do not follow the guidelines, your article will be sent back to you.

Finally, do not submit your paper to more than one journal at a time. Even if this is not explicitly stated in the author guidelines of your target journal, it is considered inappropriate and unprofessional.

Your title should invite readers to continue reading beyond the first page [ 4 , 5 ]. It should be informative and interesting. Consider describing the independent and dependent variables, the population and setting, the study design, the timing, and even the main result in your title. Because the focus of the paper can change as you write and revise, we recommend you wait until you have finished writing your paper before composing the title.

Be sure that the title is useful for potential readers searching for your topic. The keywords you select should complement those in your title to maximize the likelihood that a researcher will find your paper through a database search. Avoid using abbreviations in your title unless they are very well known, such as SNP, because it is more likely that someone will use a complete word rather than an abbreviation as a search term to help readers find your paper.

After you have written a complete draft, use the checklist (Fig. ​ (Fig.3) 3 ) below to guide your revisions and editing. Additional resources are available on writing the abstract and citing references [ 5 ]. When you feel that your work is ready, ask a trusted colleague or two to read the work and provide informal feedback. The box below provides a checklist that summarizes the key points offered in this article.

Checklist for manuscript quality

(PDF 362 kb)

Acknowledgments

Ella August is grateful to the Sustainable Sciences Institute for mentoring her in training researchers on writing and publishing their research.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Data Availability

Compliance with ethical standards.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

How to Write & Publish a Research Paper: Step-by-Step Guide

This guide is far more than a list of instructions on what to include in each section of your research paper. In fact, we will:

• Use a research paper I wrote specifically as an example to illustrate the key ideas in this guide ( link to the full-text PDF of the research paper ).
• Use real-world data (on 100,000 PubMed research papers) to show you how professional scientists write in practice, instead of presenting my own opinion on the subject.
• Provide practical tips on how to: improve your writing , find the right journal , and submit your article .

Let’s get started!

• Structure of a research paper
• Writing the Introduction section
• Writing the Methods section
• Writing the Results section
• Writing the Discussion section
• Writing the Abstract
• Writing the Title
• Writing optional sections
• Refining and improving your article
• Managing and formatting your References
• Submitting your article

1. Structure of a research paper

Most research papers follow the IMRaD structure that consists of 4 main sections:

• I ntroduction
• D iscussion

The paper also has some essential elements–Title, Abstract, and References–and may contain other optional sections–Conclusion, Acknowledgements, Funding, Conflicts of interest, and Appendix.

These sections often appear in the following order:

The advantages of following the IMRaD structure are:

• To make the paper easily scannable by readers (since most won’t read the entire manuscript.
• To avoid repeating the same information in different places.

To follow the IMRaD structure, you must learn what information goes where.

So, here’s an overview of what each of the main sections represents:

Together, these 4 sections start with the main topic of the paper and end up with a conclusion regarding that topic:

1.1. Where to start?

When writing a research paper, some people prefer to start with the Results section—since it comes out right from the data they just analyzed. Others start with the Methods section—since information about how they designed the study and analyzed the data is still fresh in their mind. Personally, I prefer to start with the Introduction section for 2 reasons:

• While doing a literature review for the introduction, sometimes I discover a problem in my approach or an interesting secondary objective that I did not think about, which as you can imagine, changes a lot of things in other sections of the article.
• I want to formulate the hypothesis before analyzing the data in order to avoid HARKing (Hypothesizing after the results are known) which is a major problem in statistics (see: 7 Tricks to Get Statistically Significant p-Values ).

2. Writing the Introduction section

The Introduction targets a non-specialized audience, so when writing it, make sure to use simple and beginner-friendly terms.

2.1. Length of the Introduction section

The introduction section should be:

• 400 to 760 words long (3 to 5 paragraphs).
• The shortest section of the article (half the length of the other sections: Methods, Results, and Discussion).

(These data are based on an analysis I made on 61,518 articles from PubMed )

2.2. Structure of the Introduction section

Here’s what you should include in the Introduction:

• Step #1: Describe the general context of your work (your aim should be to convince the reader that the topic of your research is interesting).
• Step #2: Summarize the results of previous studies on the topic (report what others have found and provide references. But don’t do an in-depth literature review, a short summary of these findings is enough).
• Step #3: Identify the gap , problem, or limitations of previous studies (find the missing pieces of the puzzle).
• Step #4: State your objective , hypothesis, question that you want to answer, or problem that you want to solve (make sure that the purpose of your study is clear and understandable, otherwise people won’t care about your results).
• Step #5: Present your solution : explain the approach you used to achieve the objective, explain what is different about it and what makes it special. Here you have to sell your approach. But keep it short (leave the details to the methods section).

2.3. Verb tense and voice in the Introduction section

Use the past tense for things that were already done and the present tense for things that continue to be true today.

For instance:

“Previous studies found that the rate of heart disease is increasing “.

“The goal of this study is to explore why the rate of heart disease increased in the past 10 years”.

You should write the Introduction using mainly the active voice.

“ A recent study found conflicting results”.

Should be favored over:

“ Conflicting results were recently found “.

2.4. Example: writing an Introduction section

In this section, we are going to verify that the Introduction section of our example article ( link to the full-text PDF ) follows the step-by-step structure discussed above. (The article studies the influence of title length on its attractiveness).

What follows is the Introduction of that article with the main steps highlighted:

INTRODUCTION

The role of a research title is to draw the reader’s attention while providing an overview of the article’s content. Finding a way to engage readers is important since only 18% of those who read the title proceed to read the abstract (Mabe and Amin, 2002).

Title attractiveness may be affected by its length; but studies on this subject have been inconsistent and sometimes contradictory (Subotic and Mukherjee, 2014; Letchford et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2018; Jacques and Sebire, 2010; Habibzadeh and Yadollahie, 2010; Stremersch et al., 2007; Falahati Qadimi Fumani et al., 2015). This may be due to bias and confounding since these studies did not follow a causal model to eliminate alternative explanations and indirect effects.

The confusion over the effect of title length led to a gap between what professional writers recommend and what researchers do in practice: while professionals recommend keeping titles as short as possible (Zeiger, 1999; Neill, 2007), in practice, titles are getting longer (Milojevi¢, 2017; Whissell, 2012) and more descriptive (mentioning the study objective, the variables involved, the main result, and the study design).

To help resolve this issue, the present study aims to quantify the direct influence of title length on its attractiveness by analyzing data on 9,830 biomedical research papers from PubMed and adjusting for confounding and indirect effects through the use of a causal diagram.

Writing is not just about following a series of rules: you should keep an eye on the flow of your story that ties your paragraphs together.

Here’s an overview of the story of our Introduction section:

3. Writing the Methods section

The Methods section is the recipe for the study: it should provide enough information to replicate the study without looking elsewhere (although most of those who read the Methods section will not be interested in replicating your study, instead they just want to make sure that your study is credible).

The Methods is the most technical section of the article. So, unlike the Introduction, don’t shy away from technical terms, since those who are not interested in such details will most likely skip this section.

3.1. Length of the Methods section

The Methods section should be:

• 760 to 1,620 words long (6 to 14 paragraphs).
• The same length as the Results or the Discussion, and about double the length of the Introduction.

(These data are based on an analysis I did on 61,514 articles from PubMed )

3.2. Structure of the Methods section

Here’s what you should include in the Methods section:

• The date and duration of the study.
• The sampling procedure.
• The assignment to different study groups.
• The source of the data.
• Any approval needed to conduct the study.
• Step#3: List the inclusion and exclusion criteria (i.e., the characteristics that participants must have to be included in the study).
• The reason behind choosing such procedure.
• The order in which things were done (a flow diagram can simplify the description of complex procedures).
• The calculation of the minimum sample size needed.
• The role of each variable (dependent, independent, or control variable).
• The methods used to address bias in the study.
• The methods used to handle missing data.
• The measures used to summarize the data.
• The type of statistical test or model you used to test your hypothesis and the threshold for statistical significance (don’t go into detail about obvious statistical tests or models, but advanced methods should be either described or referenced).
• The statistical software used [optional].

3.3. Verb tense and voice in the Methods section

Use the past tense (because the things you did took place in the past).

“The data were downloaded “.

“A linear regression model was used “.

Use the passive voice (to avoid repeating the pronouns: “I” or “We”).

“Variables were summarized using the mean and standard deviation”.

Instead of:

“I summarized the variables using the mean and standard deviation”.

3.4. Example: writing a Methods section

In this section, we are going to verify that the Methods section of our example article ( link to the full-text P D F ) follows the structure discussed above. (Remember that this article is about studying the influence of title length on its attractiveness).

What follows is the Methods section of this article with the main steps highlighted:

For this cross-sectional study, data were downloaded from PubMed Central in March 2021 using a web API created by Comeau et al. (2019). From a collection of about 3 million biomedical research articles from various journals, 105,984 were chosen at random from those uploaded between the years 2016 and 2021.

From these 105,984 articles, a total of 96,154 were discarded for incomplete data, leaving 9,830 articles ready for analysis (Figure 4). Reasons for discarding articles included: unavailable full text, unmentioned study design, missing impact factor of the journal in which the article was published, missing article DOI, and unavailable citation count.

To study the influence of title length on its attractiveness, and in order to avoid defining and measuring Title attractiveness , I substituted this variable with another closely related one: the Citation count for a given article; this can work provided that we block all alternative paths other than the direct effect of Title attractiveness on Citation count . Looking at the causal diagram in Figure 5, we notice that there is only one alternative path, and it can be blocked by adjusting for the Journal in which the article was published. Since the data contained articles from 1,040 different journals (and to avoid complicating the analysis by creating 1,039 dummy variables), I ended up adjusting for the Journal impact factor , a direct descendent of the deconfounding variable Journal , thus representing most of its effect.

To compute the direct causal effect of Title length on Title attractiveness , alternative explanations of the association between these two such as confounding and indirect effects must also be eliminated. From Figure 5, we see that this can be accomplished by adjusting for the Mention of study design in the title (a confounder) and the use of Comma in the title and Colon in the title (indirect effects).

After determining the variables that we want to adjust for, Poisson regression was used to compute the effect of Title length on Citation count . In our case, a Poisson model has 2 major advantages over linear regression: (1) it fits the data better, since counts follow a Poisson rather than a normal distribution, and (2) it accounts for different publication dates of different articles, which is important to offset the advantage of older articles regarding the time they had to collect citations (this can be accomplished by including Years since publication as an offset in the model).

The Poisson model described above can be summarized with the following equation:

log(Citation count) =β 0 + β 1 × Title length + β 2 × Journal impact factor + β 3 × Mention of study design in the title + β 4 × Comma in the title + β 5 × Colon in the title + log(Years since publication)

Variables in the model, such as Citation count , Title length , and Journal impact factor , were summarized using the median and the interquartile range (IQR), since they follow either a Poisson or a skewed non-normal distribution.

Note that in some cases, you will be forced to include some results in the Methods section. Although the research paper has a separate Results section (which we will discuss next), sometimes we include some results in the Methods section to justify the use of a certain material or method.

For example, in the Methods section above, in order to defend the use of the variable Journal impact factor instead of Journal , I ended up reporting the number of journals in the study (which is a number calculated from the data, so it normally belongs to the Results section):

“Since the data contained articles from 1,040 different journals (and to avoid complicating the analysis by creating 1,039 dummy variables), I ended up adjusting for the Journal impact factor, a direct descendent of the deconfounding variable Journal, thus representing most of its effect.”

4. Writing the Results section

In the Results section, you should describe and summarize your findings without explaining them (the interpretation should be left for the Discussion section).

4.1. Length of the Results section

The Results section should be:

• 610 to 1,660 words long (5 to 11 paragraphs).
• The same length as the Methods or the Discussion, and about double the length of the Introduction.

(These data are based on an analysis I did on 61,458 articles from PubMed )

4.2. Structure of the Results section

Here’s what you should include in the Results section:

• At each stage and for each group of the study, report the number of participants (if some were lost to follow-up, provide the reasons).
• Describe participants’ characteristics.
• Compare participants in different groups.
• Describe the main variables in the study.
• The statistical significance (the p-value).
• The precision (the 95% confidence interval).
• The practical significance (the effect size).

4.3. Using figures and tables

A table or a figure are useful to highlight important results or to represent a lot of numbers that, if reported in the text, can be unpleasant for the reader.

Here are a few rules regarding figures and tables:

• The supporting text should complement the table or figure but not repeat the same content.
• The table or figure should stand alone (i.e., the reader can understand it without referring to the text).
• No vertical lines.
• A line above the header row.
• A line below the header row.
• A line at the bottom of the table.
• No horizontal lines to separate data rows.

(Refer to the example below to see how your tables should look like)

4.4. Verb tense and voice in the Results section

Use the past tense for completed actions.

“In our sample of 9,830 articles, the median title length composed of 16 words (IQR = 6), had 2.2 yearly citations (IQR = 3.33), and was published in a journal with an impact factor of 2.74 (IQR = 1.67).”

Use the present tense for things that continue to be true today.

“The Poisson model shows a significant negative effect of longer titles on citation count.”

Use the active voice when possible.

4.5. Example: writing a Results section

In this section, we are going to verify that the Results section of our example article ( link to the full-text P D F ) follows the structure discussed above. (Remember that this article is about studying the influence of title length on its attractiveness).

What follows is the Results section of this article with the main steps highlighted:

In our sample of 9,830 articles, the median title composed of 16 words (IQR = 6), had 2.2 yearly citations (IQR = 3.33), and was published in a journal with an impact factor of 2.74 (IQR = 1.67). Also, 4,317 (43.9%) of titles contained at least one colon, 1,442 (14.7%) contained at least one comma, and 2,794 (28.4%) mentioned the study design.

The Poisson model shows a significant negative effect of longer titles on citation count (Table 2). Specifically, each additional word in the title causes a drop of 2.5% in the citation rate (95% confidence interval: [-2.7%, -2.3%]; p < 0.001). Equivalently, we can say that removing one word from the title causes an increase of 2.5% in the citation rate. To put that into perspective, removing one word from the title of the median article (that has 2.2 citations per year) causes a gain of 0.055 (= 2.2 × 0.025) citations per year, equivalent to 1 citation every 19 years.

5. Writing the Discussion section

In the Discussion section, you should explain the meaning of your results, their importance, and implications.

5.1. Length of the Discussion section

The Discussion section should be:

• 820 to 1,480 words long (5 to 9 paragraphs).
• The same length as the Methods or the Results, and about double the length of the Introduction.

(These data are based on an analysis I did on 61,517 articles from PubMed )

5.2. Structure of the Discussion section

Here’s what you should include in the Discussion section:

• Step #1: Answer the study objective (i.e., where the Introduction ended). Your first sentence can be: “We/I found that” , “This study shows/proves that” , etc.
• Explain its consequences.
• Comment on whether it supports or refutes your initial hypothesis (i.e., was this result expected or unexpected?).
• Compare it with the results of other studies (if they contradict each other: explain why, and suggest a way for further studies to resolve this contradiction).
• Then discuss your secondary finding (if you have any) by following the same steps as you did for the main finding.
• Step #3: Point out the strengths of your study (e.g., the use of a new and superior method, a larger sample size, etc.).
• How you addressed these limitations in your design and analysis (i.e., justify the methods used in your study).
• What future studies should do to address these limitations.
• Step #5: Conclude with a takeaway message that reminds the reader of your most important finding and its implications (this Conclusion paragraph is sometimes put in a separate section after the Discussion [for more information, see: Length of a Conclusion Section: Analysis of 47,810 Examples ]).

5.3. Verb tense and voice in the Discussion section

Use the past tense for completed actions. For instance:

“I found that…”.

Use the present tense for things that continue to be true today. For instance:

“This study shows that…”.

5.4. Example: writing a Discussion section

In this section, we are going to verify that the Discussion section of our example article ( link to the full-text PDF ) follows the structure discussed above. (Remember that this article is about studying the influence of title length on its attractiveness).

What follows is the Discussion section of this article with the main steps highlighted:

This study shows that shorter research titles are more engaging by proving that they attract more citations. However, this effect, although statistically significant, is practically negligible since removing one word from a title will attract, on average, a single additional citation every 19 years–so I would not recommend shortening research titles as a strategy for increasing the citation count.

Previous studies on the subject reported conflicting results for articles in different disciplines since they did not use a causal approach to control bias and confounding. For instance, they found that shorter titles attracted more citations in psychology (Subotic and Mukherjee, 2014) and general scientific research (Letchford et al., 2015), but less in economics (Guo et al., 2018) and medicine (Jacques and Sebire, 2010; Habibzadeh and Yadollahie, 2010), and had no effect in marketing research (Stremersch et al., 2007) and scientometrics (Falahati Qadimi Fumani et al., 2015). What distinguishes the present study was the use of a causal diagram to identify and block alternative paths between title length and citation count, removing all but the causal explanation of any association between the two.

However, there are some limitations: (1) the 3 million biomedical research articles that are freely available on PubMed Central from which our sample was drawn may not accurately represent all published articles—thus introducing selection bias; (2) adjusting for the journal impact factor instead of the journal itself (to reduce model complexity) may have resulted in some residual confounding; and (3) the general approach taken to adjust for bias and confounding using a causal diagram (Figure 5) created based on my understanding of the subject may have incorporated an element of subjectivity into the analysis. Future studies can address these issues by: (1) collecting data on articles from different disciplines (to increase the result’s generalizability), (2) including a larger number of articles from each journal (to enable adjusting for Journal instead of Journal impact factor ), and (3) validating, either theoretically or analytically, the structure of the causal diagram (to reduce subjectivity).

Finally, this study proves that shortening a research title is not an effective strategy for earning more citations. Yet, writing shorter titles may still have other benefits, such as: getting more reads on Mendeley (Zahedi and Haustein, 2018; Didegah and Thelwall, 2013), tweets (Haustein et al., 2015), appearances in social media in general (Zagovora et al., 2018), and avoiding truncation when they appear on the results page of an online search engine like Google.

6. Writing the Abstract

The Abstract is a summary of the article.

6.1. Length of the Abstract

The Abstract should be 220 to 320 words long (1 to 4 paragraphs).

(These data are based on an analysis I did on 61,429 articles from PubMed )

6.2. Structure of the Abstract

In the Abstract, you should provide a summary of each section of your paper (It can be divided into subheadings, if the journal allows it):

• Step #1: Start with a one sentence introduction to the subject.
• Step #2: Mention the study objective .
• Step #3: Summarize the Methods section .
• Step #4: Highlight key results in numbers (including data is important for researchers who want to cite your article based only on the Abstract).
• Step #5: End with a one sentence conclusion (i.e., skip the detailed discussion of the results and go straight to the takeaway message).

6.3. Example: writing an Abstract

In this section, we are going to verify that the Abstract of our example article ( link to the full-text PDF ) follows the structure discussed above. (Remember that this article is about studying the influence of title length on its attractiveness).

What follows is the Abstract of this article with the main steps highlighted:

Attractive titles are expected to drive more reads and thus more citations to a research article, so studying the effect of title length on its attractiveness can be reduced to analyzing its influence on the citation count. Previous studies on the subject showed conflicting results that are probably attributable to bias and confounding, since they mostly focused on predicting citation count based on title length instead of using a causal model to explain the relationship between the two. The present study aims to quantify the direct influence of title length on its attractiveness guided by a causal diagram to identify and eliminate alternative explanations such as indirect effects and confounding. The study used data on 9,830 biomedical research articles from PubMed Central, downloaded through an API created by Comeau and colleagues. Poisson regression modeled the citation rate as a function of title length, adjusting for mediators of indirect effects—such as the use of a comma and a colon in the title—and confounders—such as the journal impact factor and the mention of study design in the title. The model shows that each word removed from the title increases the citation rate by 2.5%. This means that, for the median article that receives 2.2 citations per year, each word removed from the title causes a gain of 0.055 citations per year, equivalent to 1 citation every 19 years. Although statistically significant, this effect is practically negligible—so shortening a research title is not an effective strategy for earning more citations.

7. Writing the Title

The last thing one discovers in composing a work is what to put first. Blaise Pascal

The Title’s role is to describe the content of the article and attract people to read it. Remember that only 18% of those who read the title proceed to read the Abstract [Source: Mabe and Amin, 2002 ].

7.1. Length of the Title

The Title should be 11 to 18 words long (80 to 129 characters).

Keep your Title as short as possible, since:

• Google shows only the first 60 characters of titles in their results page, so longer titles will be truncated when they appear in Google search.
• High-impact journals tend to publish articles with short titles.

(These data are based on an analysis I did on 104,161 titles from PubMed )

7.2. Structure of the Title

The Title should:

• Mention the central question or the purpose of the study (including important variables).
• Be front loaded : this means that the keywords should be close to the beginning of the title (remember that readers are scanning the title and they want to determine as fast as possible if they are interested in your article).
• Have a meaningful short version . For those searching online, Google will show them only the first 60 characters of your title and the rest is truncated. So, make sure to pack enough information in this part for users to be able to judge whether they want to click it.
• Mention the study design [optional].
• Avoid abbreviations and jargon . For instance: “ The effects of having CVD on the psychological status “ should be replaced by “Psychological effects of cardiovascular disease” .

7.3. Example: writing a Title

The following figure shows how the Title of our example article follows the structure discussed above:

8. Writing optional sections

8.1. writing the acknowledgement section.

In this section, you should acknowledge any significant technical contribution, permission, advice, suggestion, or comment you received.

“I would like to thank Prof. John for assistance with choosing an appropriate study design”.

“Thanks are due to all the hospital crew members who contributed their time and effort to make the data collection feasible in the shortest time possible”.

8.2. Writing the Funding section

In this section, you should provide the sources of funding, or the sources of the equipment and materials used in the study, and the role of funders.

“The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, or publication of this article”.

“This work was supported by [name of the funder, and grant number]”.

8.3. Writing the Conflicts of Interest section

In this section, you should state if you have any direct or indirect competing interests that may have influenced the outcome of the study, such as: financial, work, personal, or religious interests.

“The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest”.

“The corresponding author was a former employee in company X that sells the main product used in this study”.

8.4. Writing the Appendix

In this section, you should provide supplementary information that was too large to be included in the main text, such as: data, questionnaires, and additional details on the materials and methods used.

9. Refining and improving your article

The following is a list of useful tips to improve your writing:

• Avoid jargon , be concise, and focus on saving your readers’ time. The truth is that nobody enjoys reading, if readers can download information into their brain, they would!
• Assume that your readers are beginners : so, use terms that are easy to understand.
• Avoid acronyms when possible.
• You don’t know the subject.
• You don’t want to repeat the pronouns ”I” or ”We” in many places in the same paragraph (although it would be fine to use them sparingly, see: ”I” & ”We” in Academic Writing: Examples from 9,830 Studies ).
• You want to emphasize what was done instead of who did it (especially in the Methods section).
• To maintain the flow of ideas (for more information, see the video lecture by Steven Pinker below).
• Write short sentences and paragraphs : each paragraph should be between 2 and 6 sentences long (65 to 167 words), and should cover a single topic. (For more information, see: Paragraph Length: Data from 9,830 Research Papers )
• Get rid of hedge words : e.g. ”These results might suggest that a fair amount of x is suspected to have a meaningful impact on y” . These make you sound hesitant or unsure about what you are talking about.
• Avoid using “They” or “Their” when the subject is singular . For a gender-neutral language, revise the sentence to make the subject plural. For instance, use: “Participants were assigned according to their choosing” instead of “Each participant was assigned according to their choosing” .

For more writing tips, I highly recommend this lecture by Steven Pinker:

10. Managing and formatting your References

When it comes to references, you should:

• Cite between 25 and 56 references overall (approximately 1 reference for every 95 words or 4 sentences) [Source: How Many References Should a Research Paper Have? Study of 96,685 Articles ].
• Aim to find those published within the past 13 years [Source: How Old Should Your Article References Be? Based on 3,823,919 Examples ].
• Cite the original source, not secondary sources.
• Cite research papers and books instead of websites and videos (unless these contained original data not available elsewhere).
• Use a citation management software to collect and organize your references. I recommend Zotero® since it is free, easy to learn, and has a lot of tutorials online.

11. Submitting your article

Here’s a step-by-step description of how to find a journal and submit your article:

• Go to: The Directory of Open Access Journals (This is a database of 17,614 journals that publish open-access articles–i.e., if you publish in these journals, your article’s full-text will be available for free to your readers).
• Under SEE JOURNALS, select: Without article processing charges in order to exclude journal where you have to pay to publish your article.
• Under SUBJECTS, choose: the domain that is closest to the topic of your article.
• Under LANGUAGES, select: English.
• Select a journal from the suggested list.
• Go to the journal’s website, look for their “Instructions for authors”, and format your article accordingly.
• Sign-up to their website and submit your article.

Once your article is submitted, the editor takes a look at it and may:

• The topic of your article is not interesting for the journal’s audience.
• Your work is not important enough to be published in that journal.
• Rejected: In this case, you have to send your article to another journal (don’t get discouraged by rejection, sometimes important articles get rejected).
• Rejected, but can be resubmitted after making some major changes suggested by the reviewers (for instance, expanding, deleting, or re-writing major parts of the article): in this case, you can either revise and resubmit, or look for another journal.
• Accepted, but needs minor changes.
• Accepted (without the need for changes).

When you want to revise and resubmit your article, you should prepare 2 things:

• A revised manuscript with all the modifications you made highlighted (to make it easy for the reviewers to see what you changed).
• A response for the reviewers where you address their comments point by point: you can either agree or disagree with their recommendations (but, in case you disagree, you should explain the reason).

Once your paper is accepted, you will get a final version formatted in the journal’s style. Be careful to look for errors before you accept this final version.

Further reading

• How Long Should a Research Paper Be? Data from 61,519 Examples
• Can a Research Title Be a Question? Real-World Examples
• Statistical Software Popularity in 40,582 Research Papers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
• 2 Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. [email protected].
• 3 Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA. [email protected].
• PMID: 32356250
• PMCID: PMC8520870
• DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1, we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

Keywords: Manuscripts; Publishing; Scientific writing.

© 2020. The Author(s).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

The main elements of the…

The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often,…

Major elements of the discussion…

Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the…

Checklist for manuscript quality

Similar articles

• How to write and publish scientific papers: scribing information for pharmacists. Hamilton CW. Hamilton CW. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992 Oct;49(10):2477-84. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992. PMID: 1442826
• Writing biomedical manuscripts part I: fundamentals and general rules. Ohwovoriole AE. Ohwovoriole AE. West Afr J Med. 2011 May-Jun;30(3):151-7. West Afr J Med. 2011. PMID: 22120477 Review.
• Publishing particulars: Part 1. The big picture. Seals DR. Seals DR. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2023 Mar 1;324(3):R381-R392. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00265.2022. Epub 2023 Feb 7. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2023. PMID: 36749295
• Strategies to successfully publish your first manuscript. Veness M. Veness M. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2010 Aug;54(4):395-400. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02186.x. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2010. PMID: 20718922
• [Preparing a manuscript for publication in a scientific journal]. Claes L, Rosenbaum D. Claes L, et al. Unfallchirurg. 1999 May;102(5):377-83. doi: 10.1007/s001130050421. Unfallchirurg. 1999. PMID: 10409911 Review. German.
• Writing a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal: Guidance from the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy. Wirth F, Cadogan CA, Fialová D, Hazen A, Lutters M, Paudyal V, Weidmann AE, Okuyan B, Henman MC. Wirth F, et al. Int J Clin Pharm. 2024 Apr;46(2):548-554. doi: 10.1007/s11096-023-01695-6. Epub 2024 Feb 8. Int J Clin Pharm. 2024. PMID: 38332208 Free PMC article.
• Lessons learnt from a scientific peer-review training programme designed to support research capacity and professional development in a global community. Buser JM, Morris KL, Millicent Dzomeku V, Endale T, Smith YR, August E. Buser JM, et al. BMJ Glob Health. 2023 Apr;8(4):e012224. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012224. BMJ Glob Health. 2023. PMID: 37185299 Free PMC article.
• A guide to backward paper writing for the data sciences. Zelner J, Broen K, August E. Zelner J, et al. Patterns (N Y). 2022 Jan 3;3(3):100423. doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2021.100423. eCollection 2022 Mar 11. Patterns (N Y). 2022. PMID: 35510182 Free PMC article. Review.
• Practical guide for the use of medical evidence in scientific publication: Recommendations for the medical student: Narrative review. Lozada-Martínez ID, Acevedo-Aguilar LM, Mass-Hernández LM, Matta-Rodríguez D, Jiménez-Filigrana JA, Garzón-Gutiérrez KE, Barahona-Botache SA, Vásquez-Castañeda DL, Caicedo-Giraldo SDR, Rahman S. Lozada-Martínez ID, et al. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021 Oct 9;71:102932. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102932. eCollection 2021 Nov. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021. PMID: 34659747 Free PMC article. Review.
• Michalek AM. Down the rabbit hole…advice to reviewers. J Cancer Educ. 2014;29:4–5. doi: 10.1007/s13187-013-0602-x. - DOI - PubMed
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors: who is an author? http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/d... . Accessed 15 January, 2020
• Vetto JT. Short and sweet: a short course on concise medical writing. J Cancer Educ. 2014;29(1):194–195. doi: 10.1007/s13187-013-0584-8. - DOI - PubMed
• Brett M, Kording K (2017) Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS ComputBiol. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619 - PMC - PubMed
• Lang TA (2017) Writing a better research article. J Public Health Emerg. 10.21037/jphe.2017.11.06
• Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

High School Guide: How to Publish a Research Paper in 5 Easy Steps

Indigo Research Team

We understand how overwhelming the idea of publishing research as a high schooler may seem. It’s true, that the process of submitting and publishing a paper can be very complex and daunting. It needs a lot of preparation and perseverance.

However, publishing research increasingly becomes the " gold " that a college Admission Officer is looking for. Publication in leading journals, like Concord Review, or International Journal for High School Students can showcase your ability and determination to a college admission officer when you apply for college.

Although it seems complicated, worry not! We’ll simplify the steps for you.

‍ This article will break down 5 steps on how to publish a research paper.

1. Find the Right Mentor for Your Research Purposes

Can you write a research paper on your own? Yes, you can. But, it would be extremely difficult. Finding the perfect mentor is key to having a smooth ride. As an aspiring high school student, you'll want guidance from someone who shares your intellectual interests and can offer expertise in your field of study. Mentors can also help you find information about publishing research as well as where to publish a research paper.

“If you cannot see where you are going, find someone who has been there before.” - J.L. Norris

To find a mentor, first , you need to reflect on your goals and needs. Ask yourself these questions:

• Do you want help developing research questions? • Feedback on a draft? • Opportunities to co-author a paper?

Defining what you hope to gain from mentorship will help determine who may be the best fit.

‍ Secondly, once you know (in general) who you want to work with, you can start your search by browsing the faculty profiles on your school’s website or research database like academia.edu or you can also utilize social media platforms like LinkedIn. Look for professors with expertise in your areas of interest. 

It’s important to reach out in the right manner for them to notice you. Remember, you are the one who needs their help and not the other way around. Therefore, the way you reach out online is very crucial to get their attention. Keep in mind that you should do thorough research about this person before sending a message. Here’s an example of a short template message you can use for initial communication on LinkedIn:

Dear Professor [Last Name],

I'm [Your Name], a high school student passionate about [Your Research Interest]. Impressed by your work in [Their Field]. I'm very intrigued by your argumentation about [Topic]. I’m looking for a mentorship for a project I'm planning. Your guidance would be invaluable. Could we discuss this possibility

Looking forward to hearing from you. Best,

[Your Name] ‍

Third, if you still can’t find an available mentor, you should also expose yourself to new ideas by attending guest lectures, joining online forums, and reading publications in your field. You can also find mentors who have published research papers that you are interested in. Engage with the material by asking questions. This demonstrates your passion for learning and can lead to finding a mentor.

While finding a mentor can be a bit of a hassle, you can check out our mentors and find the mentor of your preferences. After you have found your mentor, you can start doing the second step.

2. Choose an Exciting Research Topic That Interests You

Choosing topics that you are deeply passionate about or interested in is the key to keeping you motivated until the end of the research. 

Discover Your Passions or Interests

There are many passion project ideas that you can explore. But you can always start by asking:

• What do you love to read about or discuss with friends?  • Are there any social issues you care deeply about?  • What are the topics related to your hobbies, favorite books or movies, sports teams, and travel destinations? • Or do you like more of the popular subjects in your school like biology, chemistry, computer science, psychology, or genetics? Look for topics that spark your curiosity or creativity.

Find an Opportunity Gap

Review what research has already been done on topics that interest you. Look for areas that could use more exploration or that you could investigate further. Think about new angles, questions, or perspectives you might bring to the subject. Finding an unexplored niche in a broader topic area can lead to an exciting, original research paper.

Talk to Your Mentor

Discuss ideas with your mentor, especially if you have an area of study in mind but need guidance narrowing down to a specific, manageable research question. Your mentor may be able to suggest topics that would work well for a research paper and align with standards or curriculum. They can also help determine if a topic idea is too broad or narrow, or if resources will be readily available.

Application of the Research in Reality

Choose a topic that could have real-world implications or applications. How can your research paper help real-world problems?

Think about local issues in your community or school that could be addressed or improved through research. Papers investigating practical solutions or the effectiveness of policies, programs, or interventions tend to be very compelling.

3. Choose the Right Journal or Conference to Publish Your Research Paper

“Where can I publish my research paper?” ‍

You can publish your research paper through respectable journals, conferences, or research paper competitions. It's important to have a goal in mind before starting any research paper. Determining this in the beginning might help you to stay on course and motivated. 

Consider the Scope of the Selected Journals

Decide the scope then look for publications that focus on your area of study or research topic. Are you looking to publish a research paper in an international journal? Or are you aiming for more local journals? 

Double-check that the journal accepts submissions from high school students and check their reputation. Aim high, but be realistic. See if any professors or mentors can recommend appropriate platforms. Review the editorial board and see if top researchers in your field are involved.

Examples of the journals that can publish your research paper as a high schooler include:

• Concord Review  
• The National High School Journal of Science
• STEM Fellowship Journal
• Journal of Student Research
• Journal of High School Science (JHSS)
• International Journal of High School Research (IJHSR)

“Where can I publish my research paper for free?” ‍

Here are some journals where you can submit your research paper for free, but be aware some of them require a publication fee:

• Journal of Emerging Investigators (JEI)
• Young Scientist Journal
• Youth Medical Journal
• Journal Research High School
• Hope Humanities Journal
• International Youth Neuroscience Association Journal
• Whitman Journal of Psychology

Review Submission Guidelines

Once you’ve set your mind and chosen your goal, carefully read and follow the instructions for authors. Pay attention to formatting, abstract length, images, and anything else specified. Following the guidelines shows you understand publishing norms in your field.

4. Conduct Thorough Research, Write and Format Your Research Paper Properly

Now that you have selected a topic and compiled sources, it's time to dive into your research and start writing. Publishing a research paper in a journal requires thorough research and a properly formatted paper.

• Analyze and read all of your resources and take notes on the key ideas, facts, questions, examples, data, quotes, and arguments that might be relevant to your research project. Keep it organized into an outline.
• Determine your research question and consult with your mentor. Once you begin drafting your paper, be sure to paraphrase, summarize, and quote the right citation.  ‍
• Carefully proofread and format your paper. Double-check for any spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors. Ensure your paper follows the recommended style guide for font type and size, spacing, margins, page numbers, headings, and image captions. ‍

Of course, writing a research paper is not as easy. If you need guidance, you can also try to join research programs that will allow you to finish the research paper easier.

5. Review Before Submitting Your Research Paper and Respond to Feedback

Once your paper is complete, it's time to share your work with the world.

Review Your Research Paper

Before making this incredible step, review your research paper once again. Have a teacher or mentor check your paper to ensure it meets the journal's standards. Put together a cover letter introducing yourself and your research. Explain the importance of your work and most importantly, why they need to publish your work.

Anticipate Feedback

Even after submitting, your work isn't done. Journals will send your paper out for peer review by experts in the field. Reviewers may suggest changes to strengthen your paper before it can be accepted. Don't get discouraged—even professional researchers incorporate feedback! Address each comment thoroughly and openly. Making revisions will improve your paper and help you become a better writer and researcher.

How Long Does it Take to Publish a Research Paper?

In general, the publication process can take several months to a year or more from the initial submission to final publication. It depends on the institutions and the availability of the peer reviewers. If your paper is accepted for publication, congratulations! If not, use the experience as an opportunity to improve. Carefully consider the feedback and see it as a chance to strengthen your methods, arguments, and writing. Don't hesitate to submit to another journal or work with your mentor to revise and resubmit.

That’s it! Congratulations on finishing all the steps!

Whether or not you get published, finishing the research paper is an achievement in itself. We hope that this article on how to publish a research paper will help you to get your research paper published. Remember that persistence, attention to detail, and a clear understanding of your target journal's guidelines are key. Stay determined and keep researching. You got this!

Need more guidance to do your research paper and most importantly, publish your paper? Don't worry, we've got you! At Indigo Research, we connect you with leading professors from renowned universities who are eager to mentor you and support you in publishing your research!

Click to discover more about how we can help!

• How to Publish a Research Paper: A Complete Guide
• Self Publishing Guide

Read:  Learn How to Write & Craft a Compelling Villain for Your Story.

• Step 1: Identifying the Right Journal
• Step 2: Preparing Step 3: Your Manuscript

Step 3: Conducting a Thorough Review

Step 4: Writing a Compelling Cover Letter

Step 5: Navigating the Peer Review Process

Step 6: Handling Rejections

Step 7: Preparing for Publication

Step 8: Promoting Your Published Paper

Step 1: Identifying the Right Journal 

The first step in publishing a research paper is crucial, as it sets the foundation for the entire publication process. Identifying the right journal involves carefully selecting a publication platform that aligns with your research topic, audience, and academic goals. Here are the key considerations to keep in mind during this step:

• Scope and Focus : Assess the scope and focus of your research to find journals that publish articles in your field of study. Look for journals that have previously published papers related to your topic or research area.
• Readership and Impact Factor : Consider the target audience of the journal and its readership. Higher-impact factor journals typically attract a broader readership and can enhance the visibility and credibility of your research.
• Publication Frequency : Investigate the publication frequency of the journal. Some journals publish issues monthly, quarterly, or annually. Choose a journal that aligns with your timeline for publication.
• Indexing and Reputation : Check if the journal is indexed in reputable databases, such as Scopus or PubMed. Indexed journals are more likely to be recognized and accessed by researchers worldwide.
• Journal Guidelines : Familiarise yourself with the journal’s submission guidelines, available on their website. Pay attention to manuscript length limits, reference styles, and formatting requirements.
• Open Access Options : Consider whether the journal offers open access publishing. Open-access journals allow unrestricted access to your paper, potentially increasing its visibility and impact.
• Ethical Considerations : Ensure the journal follows ethical publication practises and abides by industry standards. Verify if the journal is a member of reputable publishing organisations, such as COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics).
• Publication Fees : Check if the journal charges any publication fees or article processing charges (APCs). These fees can vary significantly among journals and may influence your decision.
• Target Audience : Consider the journal’s target audience and the level of technical detail appropriate for that audience. Some journals cater to a more specialised readership, while others aim for a broader appeal.
• Journal Reputation : Research the reputation of the journal within your academic community. Seek advice from colleagues or mentors who have published in similar journals.

By carefully considering these factors, you can make an informed decision on the most suitable journal for your research paper. Selecting the right journal increases your chances of acceptance and ensures that your work reaches the intended audience, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in your field.

Step 2: Preparing Your Manuscript

After identifying the appropriate journal, the next step is to prepare your manuscript for submission. This stage involves meticulous attention to detail and adherence to the journal’s specific author guidelines. Here’s a comprehensive guide to preparing your manuscript:

• Read Author Guidelines : Carefully read and understand the journal’s author guidelines, which are available on the journal’s website. The guidelines provide instructions on manuscript preparation, the submission process, and formatting requirements.
• Manuscript Structure : Follow the standard structure for a research paper, including the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections. Ensure that each section is clear and well-organised.
• Title and Abstract : Craft a concise and informative title that reflects the main focus of your research. The abstract should provide a summary of your study’s objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
• Introduction : The introduction should introduce the research problem, provide context, and state the research objectives or questions. Engage readers by highlighting the significance of your research.
• Methodology : Describe the research design, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques used in your study. Provide sufficient detail to enable other researchers to replicate your study.
• Results : Present your findings in a clear and logical manner. Use tables, graphs, and figures to enhance the presentation of data. Avoid interpreting the results in this section.
• Discussion : Analyse and interpret your results in the discussion section. Relate your findings to the research objectives and previously published literature. Discuss the implications of your results and any limitations of your study.
• Conclusion : In the conclusion, summarise the key findings of your research and restate their significance. Avoid introducing new information in this section.
• Citations and References : Cite all sources accurately and consistently throughout the manuscript. Follow the journal’s preferred citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago.
• Proofreading and Editing : Thoroughly proofread your manuscript to correct any grammatical errors, typos, or inconsistencies. Edit for clarity, conciseness, and logical flow.
• Figures and Tables : Ensure that all figures and tables are clear, properly labelled, and cited in the main text. Follow the journal’s guidelines for the formatting of figures and tables.
• Ethical Considerations : Include any necessary statements regarding ethical approval, conflicts of interest, or data availability, as required by the journal.

By meticulously preparing your manuscript and adhering to the journal’s guidelines, you increase the likelihood of a successful submission. A well-structured and polished manuscript enhances the readability and impact of your research, ultimately increasing your chances of acceptance for publication.

You may also like: How to Make Book Design More Appealing to the Reader

The process of conducting a thorough review of your research paper is a critical step in the publication journey. This step ensures that your work is polished, accurate, and ready for submission to a journal. A well-reviewed paper increases the chances of acceptance and demonstrates your commitment to producing high-quality research. Here are the key aspects to consider during the review process:

• Grammatical Errors and Typos : Start by carefully proofreading your paper for any grammatical errors, typos, or spelling mistakes. Even minor errors can undermine the credibility of your research and distract readers from your main points. Use grammar-checking tools, but also read your paper line by line to catch any issues that zated tools might miss.
• Consistency and Clarity : Ensure that your writing is consistent throughout the paper. Check that you have used the same terminology, abbreviations, and formatting consistently. Additionally, pay attention to sentence structure and coherence, making sure that each paragraph flows logically into the next.
• Accuracy of Data, Graphs, and Tables : Review all the data presented in your research, including figures, graphs, and tables. Verify that the data is accurate, correctly labelled, and represented in a clear and understandable manner. Any errors in data representation can lead to misinterpretations and undermine the reliability of your findings.
• Citation and Referencing : Verify that all the sources you have cited are accurate and properly formatted according to the citation style required by the target journal. Missing or incorrect citations can lead to accusations of plagiarism and harm the integrity of your work.
• Addressing Feedback : If you have received feedback from colleagues, mentors, or peer reviewers during the pre-submission process, carefully consider their suggestions and address any concerns raised. Engaging with feedback shows your willingness to improve and strengthen your paper.
• Objective Evaluation : Try to read your paper with a critical eye, as if you were a reviewer assessing its merits. Identify any weaknesses or areas that could be improved, both in terms of content and presentation. Be open to rewriting or restructuring sections that could benefit from further clarity or depth.
• Seek Feedback : To ensure the highest quality, seek feedback from colleagues or mentors who are knowledgeable in your research field. They can provide valuable insights and offer suggestions for improvement. Peer review can identify blind spots and help you refine your arguments.
• Formatting and Guidelines : Review the journal’s specific formatting and submission guidelines. Adhering to these requirements demonstrates your attention to detail and increases the likelihood of acceptance.

In conclusion, conducting a thorough review of your research paper is an essential step before submission. It involves checking for grammatical errors, ensuring clarity and consistency, verifying data accuracy, addressing feedback, and seeking external input. A well-reviewed paper enhances its chances of publication and contributes to the overall credibility of your research.

The cover letter is your opportunity to make a strong first impression on the journal’s editor and to persuade them that your research paper is a valuable contribution to their publication. It serves as a bridge between your work and the editor, highlighting the significance and originality of your study and explaining why it is a good fit for the journal. Here are the key elements to include in a compelling cover letter:

• Introduction : Start the letter with a professional and cordial greeting, addressing the editor by their name if possible. Introduce yourself and provide your affiliation, including your academic title and institution. Mention the title of your research paper and its co-authors, if any.
• Brief Summary of Research : Provide a concise and compelling summary of your research. Clearly state the research question or problem you addressed, the methodology you employed, and your main findings. Emphasise the significance of your research and its potential impact on the field.
• Highlight Originality : Explain what sets your study apart from existing research in the field. Highlight the original contributions your paper makes, whether it’s a novel approach, new insights, or addressing a gap in the literature. Demonstrating the novelty of your work will capture the editor’s attention.
• Fit with the Journal : Explain why your research is a good fit for the target journal. Refer to recent articles published in the journal that are related to your topic and discuss how your research complements or extends those works. Aligning your paper with the journal’s scope and objectives enhances your chances of acceptance.
• Addressing Specific Points : If the journal’s author guidelines include specific requirements, address them in your cover letter. This shows that you have read and followed their guidelines carefully. For example, if the journal requires you to highlight the practical implications of your research, briefly mention these in your letter.
• Previous Engagement : If you have presented your research at a conference, workshop, or seminar, or if it has been previously reviewed (e.g., as a preprint), mention it in the cover letter. This indicates that your work has already undergone some scrutiny and may strengthen its appeal to the journal.
• Declaration of Originality : State that the paper is original, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under simultaneous consideration by any other publication. This declaration reassures the editor that your work meets the journal’s submission policies.
• Contact Information : Provide your contact details, including email and phone number, and express your willingness to address any queries or provide additional information if needed.
• Expression of Gratitude : Thank the editor for their time and consideration in reviewing your submission.

In conclusion, a well-crafted cover letter complements your research paper and convinces the journal’s editor of the significance and originality of your work. It should provide a succinct overview of your research, highlight its relevance to the journal’s scope, and address any specific points raised in the author guidelines. A compelling cover letter increases the likelihood of your paper being seriously considered for publication.

You may also like: International Publishing: Expanding Your Reach Beyond Borders

The peer review process is a crucial step in scholarly publishing, designed to ensure the quality, accuracy, and validity of research papers before they are accepted for publication. After you submit your manuscript to a journal, it is sent to peer reviewers who are experts in your field. These reviewers carefully assess your work, providing feedback and recommendations to the editor. Navigating the peer review process requires patience, open-mindedness, and a willingness to engage constructively with reviewers. Here’s a detailed explanation of this step:

• Submission and Assignment : Once you submit your paper, the journal’s editorial team performs an initial screening to check if it aligns with the journal’s scope and guidelines. If it does, the editor assigns peer reviewers who have expertise in the subject matter of your research.
• Reviewing Process : The peer reviewers evaluate your paper’s methodology, data analysis, conclusions, and overall contribution to the field. They may assess the clarity of your writing, the strength of your arguments, and the relevance of your findings. Reviewers also look for potential flaws or limitations in your study.
• Reviewer Feedback : After the reviewers have thoroughly examined your paper, they provide feedback to the editor. The feedback usually falls into three categories: acceptance, revision, or rejection. In the case of a revision, reviewers may specify the changes they believe are necessary for the paper to meet the journal’s standards.
• Editor’s Decision : Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editor makes a decision about your paper. The decision could be acceptance, conditional acceptance pending minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. Even if your paper is rejected, remember that the peer review process provides valuable feedback that can help improve your research.
• Responding to Reviewer Comments : If your paper requires revisions, carefully read the reviewer comments and suggestions. Address each comment in a respectful and diligent manner, providing clear responses and incorporating the necessary changes into your manuscript.
• Revised Manuscript Submission : Submit the revised version of your paper along with a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments. Explain the changes you made and how you addressed their concerns. This demonstrates your commitment to enhancing the quality of your research.
• Reiteration of the Review Process : Depending on the revisions, the editor may send your paper back to the same reviewers or to new reviewers for a second round of evaluation. This process continues until the paper is either accepted for publication or deemed unsuitable for the journal.
• Acceptance and Publication : If your paper successfully navigates the peer review process and meets the journal’s standards, it will be accepted for publication. Congratulations on reaching this milestone!

In conclusion, the peer review process is an essential part of academic publishing. It involves expert evaluation of your research by peers in the field, who provide valuable feedback to improve the quality and rigour of your paper. Embrace the feedback with an open mind, respond diligently to reviewer comments, and be patient during the review process. Navigating peer review is a collaborative effort to ensure that only high-quality and significant research contributes to the scholarly community.

Receiving a rejection of your research paper can be disheartening, but it is a common and normal part of the publication process. It’s important to remember that rejection does not necessarily reflect the quality of your work; many groundbreaking studies have faced rejection before finding the right publication platform. Handling rejections requires resilience, a growth mindset, and the willingness to learn from the feedback. Here’s a comprehensive explanation of this step:

• Understanding the Decision : When you receive a rejection, take the time to carefully read the editor’s decision letter and the feedback provided by the peer reviewers. Understand the reasons for the rejection and the specific concerns raised about your paper.
• Embrace Constructive Feedback : Peer reviewer comments can provide valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of your research. Embrace the feedback constructively, recognising that it presents an opportunity to improve your work.
• Assessing Revisions : If the decision letter includes suggestions for revisions, carefully consider whether you agree with them. Evaluate if implementing these revisions aligns with your research goals and the core message of your paper.
• Revising the Manuscript : If you decide to make revisions based on the feedback, thoroughly address the reviewer’s comments and consider making any necessary improvements to your research. Pay close attention to the areas identified by the reviewers as needing improvement.
• Resubmission or Alternative Journals : After revising your manuscript, you have the option to either resubmit it to the same journal (if allowed) or consider submitting it to a different journal. If you choose the latter, ensure that the new journal aligns with your research topic and scope.
• Tailoring the Submission : When submitting to a different journal, tailor your manuscript and cover letter to fit the specific requirements and preferences of that journal. Highlight the relevance of your research to the journal’s readership and address any unique guidelines they have.
• Don’t Lose Hope : Rejections are a natural part of the publication process, and many researchers face them at some point in their careers. It is essential not to lose hope and to remain persistent in pursuing publication opportunities.
• Learn and Improve : Use the feedback from the rejection as a learning experience. Identify areas for improvement in your research, writing, and presentation. This will help you grow as a researcher and improve your chances of acceptance in the future.
• Seek Support and Guidance : If you are struggling to navigate the publication process or interpret reviewer comments, seek support from colleagues, mentors, or academic advisors. Their insights can provide valuable guidance and encouragement.

In conclusion, handling rejections is a normal part of the publication journey. Approach rejection with a growth mindset, embracing the feedback provided by reviewers as an opportunity to improve your research. Revise your manuscript diligently, and consider submitting it to other journals that align with your research. Remember that persistence, learning from feedback, and seeking support are key to achieving success in the scholarly publishing process.

Unlocking Success: How to Sell Books Online Effectively

After successfully navigating the peer review process and receiving acceptance for your research paper, you are one step closer to seeing your work published in a reputable journal. However, before your paper can be published, you need to prepare it for production according to the journal’s specific requirements. This step is essential to ensuring that your paper meets the journal’s formatting and style guidelines and is ready for dissemination to the academic community. Here’s a comprehensive explanation of this step:

• Reviewing the Acceptance Letter : Start by carefully reviewing the acceptance letter from the journal’s editor. This letter will outline any final comments or suggestions from the reviewers that need to be addressed before publication.
• Addressing Reviewer Comments : If there are any outstanding revisions or clarifications requested by the reviewers, address them promptly and thoroughly. Reviewer feedback plays a crucial role in enhancing the quality and clarity of your paper, so it’s essential to give each comment due attention.
• Adhering to Journal Guidelines : Familiarise yourself with the journal’s production requirements and guidelines for formatting, referencing, and figure preparation. Ensure that your paper adheres to these guidelines to avoid delays in the publication process.
• Finalising the Manuscript : Once all revisions have been made and the paper aligns with the journal’s requirements, finalise your manuscript. Carefully proofread the entire paper to catch any remaining grammatical errors or typos.
• Handling Permissions and Copyright : If your paper includes copyrighted material (e.g., figures, tables, or excerpts from other publications), obtain permission from the original copyright holders to reproduce that content in your paper. This is crucial to avoid potential copyright infringement issues.
• Completing Authorship and Affiliation Details : Verify that all authors’ names, affiliations, and contact information are accurate and consistent. Ensure that the corresponding author is clearly identified for communication with the journal during the publication process.
• Submitting the Final Manuscript : Follow the journal’s instructions to submit the final version of your manuscript along with any required supplementary materials. This may include high-resolution figures, data sets, or additional supporting information.
• Waiting for Publication : After submitting the final version, the journal’s production team will work on typesetting, formatting, and preparing your paper for publication. This process may take some time, depending on the journal’s workflow and schedule.
• Proofing and Corrections : Once the typeset proof is ready, carefully review it for any formatting errors or typographical mistakes. Respond to the journal promptly with any necessary corrections or clarifications.
• Copyright Transfer : If required by the journal, complete the copyright transfer agreement, granting the publisher the right to publish and distribute your work.
• Publication Date and DOI : Your paper will be assigned a publication date and a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), a unique alphanumeric string that provides a permanent link to your paper, making it easily accessible and citable.

In conclusion, preparing your research paper for publication involves carefully addressing reviewer comments, adhering to journal guidelines, handling permissions and copyright issues, and submitting the final version for production. Thoroughly reviewing and finalising your paper will ensure its readiness for dissemination to the academic community.

Congratulations on successfully publishing your research paper! Now, it’s time to promote your work to reach a broader audience and increase its visibility within the academic and research communities. Effective promotion can lead to more citations, recognition, and potential collaborations. Here’s a comprehensive explanation of this step:

• Share on Social Media : Utilise social media platforms to announce the publication of your paper. Share the title, abstract, and a link to the paper on your professional profiles, such as  LinkedIn ,  Twitter , or  ResearchGate . Engage with your followers to generate interest and discussion.
• Collaborate with Colleagues : Collaborate with your co-authors and colleagues to promote the paper collectively. Encourage them to share the publication on their social media and academic networks. A collaborative effort can increase the paper’s visibility and reach.
• Academic Networks and Research Platforms : Upload your paper to academic networks and research platforms like Academia.edu, Mendeley, or Google Scholar. This allows other researchers to discover and cite your work more easily.
• Email and Newsletters : Inform your professional contacts and research network about the publication through email announcements or newsletters. Consider writing a brief summary of your paper’s key findings and significance to entice readers to access the full paper.
• Research Blog or Website : If you have a personal research blog or website, create a dedicated post announcing the publication. Provide a summary of your research and its implications in a reader-friendly format.
• Engage with the Academic Community : Participate in academic conferences, workshops, and seminars to present your research. Networking with other researchers and sharing your findings in person can create buzz around your paper.
• Press Releases : If your research has practical implications or societal relevance, consider working with your institution’s press office to issue a press release about your paper. This can attract media attention and increase public awareness.
• Academic and Research Forums : Engage in online academic and research forums to discuss your findings and share insights. Be active in relevant discussions to establish yourself as an expert in your field.
• Researcher Profiles : Keep your researcher profiles, such as those on Google Scholar, ORCID, and Scopus, updated with your latest publications. This ensures that your paper is indexed and visible to other researchers searching for related work.
• Altmetrics : Monitor the altmetrics of your paper to track its online attention, including mentions, downloads, and social media shares. Altmetrics provide additional metrics beyond traditional citations, giving you insights into your paper’s broader impact.
• Engage with Feedback : Respond to comments and questions from readers who engage with your paper. Engaging in scholarly discussions can further promote your work and demonstrate your expertise in the field.

In conclusion, promoting your published paper is an essential step to increasing its visibility, impact, and potential for further collaboration. Utilise social media, academic networks, collaborations with colleagues, and engagement with the academic community to create interest in your work. Effective promotion can lead to more citations and recognition, enhancing the overall impact of your research.

Read: Here’s a list of 10 best short story books to read in 2023 that you can’t miss.

Publishing a research paper is a rewarding experience that requires dedication, perseverance, and attention to detail. By following this essential guide, you can navigate the publication process successfully and contribute valuable knowledge to your field of study.

Remember, each publication is a stepping stone in your academic journey, and even rejections provide opportunities for growth. Embrace the process, continue refining your research, and celebrate your contributions to advancing scientific knowledge. Good luck on your journey to academic success!

• About The Author
• Latest Posts

Manan Sahni

You May Also Like

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

ISSN (Online): 2582-7898 Impact Factor = 5.59 Cite Factor: 0.81

For Authors

Author Guidelines Submit Manuscript Manuscript Template Article Publication Charges

Past Issues

Google Zenodo WorldCat

How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper

Publishing a research paper or getting it published in an academic journal can be one of the most fulfilling accomplishments in your academic career. You’ve spent countless hours learning, researching, thinking and writing, and now you get to share your knowledge with others who share your interests and passion for research. This guide on how to publish a research paper will help you choose the best journal for publishing your work, what information to include in your manuscript and how to format it correctly and more!

Choose your topic

For many scientists, the goal of their research is publication. Every published paper not only contributes to the body of knowledge in a particular field, but also gives credit and recognition for individual accomplishment. Publishing can be an arduous process, however; take this step-by-step guide to help you get started.

Conduct your Literature Review

Find articles from reputable journals and use them to conduct your literature review. To start, you can conduct an academic search in Google Scholar , read the abstracts, and include these articles in your list of sources. Make sure that all the papers are on an appropriate scholarly level (peer reviewed, etc.) and published within 5 years of when you write your paper. Once you have compiled this list of academic sources, it is time to move on the steps.

Write your Introduction

In the introduction, you’ll summarize the paper’s content and specify its goals. After, you’ll establish a clear research question or problem that your research will try to answer. With this all done, you’ll introduce who your target audience is and outline how your findings will affect them. In short, the introduction must tell people what they’re getting themselves into.

Write your Methodology section

I will use the grading scale as an example of how to write a formal methodology section. I have been using this system in all my research writing classes, and it has been accepted by both instructors and readers. As such, I feel confident in saying that it is both efficient and effective. The steps are as follows: To begin, place the question or problem statement in brackets at the top of the page. For instance:

Write your Results section

1.Sit down and think about your research project from beginning to end; ask yourself, What are the major findings? What are my key messages? Once you have answered these questions, it is important to think about how the audience of your paper will react. Will they understand what you’re trying to say or explain? If not, can you simplify it?

2. It is a good idea to start by outlining your ideas in points and then reordering them into an outline that flows in sequential order.

3. This next step is one of the most crucial: having someone who understands English grammar and has excellent writing skills read over your paper for errors before submitting it for publishing.

Write your Discussion section

After thinking about the purpose of your research and reading related papers, formulate an original research question. Make sure your question is clear and has a single answer with some way to measure it, otherwise your results will be ambiguous. Once you have developed the best research question, start writing out how you are going to answer it by outlining what you need. Next, follow these steps when starting on your experimental procedures:

1. set up necessary materials and equipment;

2. construct study setup;

3. collect data; and finally

4. analyze data.

Be sure not to rush this process because you want everything in place before getting into the analysis step so that you can quickly find any errors or mistakes if they exist.

Write your Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion, I recommend that you write your introduction at the end of the paper. Then, work on the methods and results sections and finally the discussion section. Once you finish with those three sections, then write your introduction. I also recommend using reference materials like an index card and your computer during the process of writing. Remember that publishing a research paper can be fun and rewarding!

Get References from Sources

A lot of people ask me how to publish a research paper. Fortunately, this is pretty easy these days if you know where to start. Here’s how it works. You need your references from sources, of course. These should be from respected and reliable sources (e.g., journals with peer review) that are relevant for your topic area. Your reviewers may require them for approval purposes and/or help evaluating the quality of your research. You’ll want at least five good references – more is better, but not all papers need more than five good references, especially those on popular topics in academic circles or within a specific discipline.

Start Writing

The first step is coming up with a research question.

Hi, How can I help you?

Journal of Materials Chemistry A

Promoting your work to the materials community: editor top tips for writing an effective research paper.

* Corresponding authors

a Department of Materials Science and Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7001, USA E-mail: [email protected]

b School of Chemistry, University College Dublin, Belfield, Ireland E-mail: [email protected]

c Electrochemical Process Engineering (EPE) Division, CSIR-Central Electrochemical Research Institute (CECRI), Karaikudi, Tamil Nadu 630003, India E-mail: [email protected]

d Department of Chemistry, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA E-mail: [email protected]

e Fachbereich Chemie, Universität Konstanz, Universitätsstraße 10, 78457 Kostanz, Germany E-mail: [email protected]

Authors and editors alike want publications in the Journal of Materials Chemistry A to be visible to the community and to have strong impact in their respective fields and beyond. To help authors craft manuscripts that will be exciting, impactful and meaningful, and to withstand the test of time, the editors of J. Mater. Chem. A provide their tips and recommendations on structuring your paper to emphasise the new insights, rigour, and significance of your work.

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

V. Augustyn, S. A. Cussen, S. Kundu, F. E. Osterloh and M. M. Unterlass, J. Mater. Chem. A , 2024,  12 , 17753 DOI: 10.1039/D4TA90097A

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author, advertisements.

How to cite ChatGPT

Use discount code STYLEBLOG15 for 15% off APA Style print products with free shipping in the United States.

We, the APA Style team, are not robots. We can all pass a CAPTCHA test , and we know our roles in a Turing test . And, like so many nonrobot human beings this year, we’ve spent a fair amount of time reading, learning, and thinking about issues related to large language models, artificial intelligence (AI), AI-generated text, and specifically ChatGPT . We’ve also been gathering opinions and feedback about the use and citation of ChatGPT. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and shared ideas, opinions, research, and feedback.

In this post, I discuss situations where students and researchers use ChatGPT to create text and to facilitate their research, not to write the full text of their paper or manuscript. We know instructors have differing opinions about how or even whether students should use ChatGPT, and we’ll be continuing to collect feedback about instructor and student questions. As always, defer to instructor guidelines when writing student papers. For more about guidelines and policies about student and author use of ChatGPT, see the last section of this post.

Quoting or reproducing the text created by ChatGPT in your paper

If you’ve used ChatGPT or other AI tools in your research, describe how you used the tool in your Method section or in a comparable section of your paper. For literature reviews or other types of essays or response or reaction papers, you might describe how you used the tool in your introduction. In your text, provide the prompt you used and then any portion of the relevant text that was generated in response.

Unfortunately, the results of a ChatGPT “chat” are not retrievable by other readers, and although nonretrievable data or quotations in APA Style papers are usually cited as personal communications , with ChatGPT-generated text there is no person communicating. Quoting ChatGPT’s text from a chat session is therefore more like sharing an algorithm’s output; thus, credit the author of the algorithm with a reference list entry and the corresponding in-text citation.

When prompted with “Is the left brain right brain divide real or a metaphor?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that although the two brain hemispheres are somewhat specialized, “the notation that people can be characterized as ‘left-brained’ or ‘right-brained’ is considered to be an oversimplification and a popular myth” (OpenAI, 2023).

OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat

You may also put the full text of long responses from ChatGPT in an appendix of your paper or in online supplemental materials, so readers have access to the exact text that was generated. It is particularly important to document the exact text created because ChatGPT will generate a unique response in each chat session, even if given the same prompt. If you create appendices or supplemental materials, remember that each should be called out at least once in the body of your APA Style paper.

When given a follow-up prompt of “What is a more accurate representation?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that “different brain regions work together to support various cognitive processes” and “the functional specialization of different regions can change in response to experience and environmental factors” (OpenAI, 2023; see Appendix A for the full transcript).

Creating a reference to ChatGPT or other AI models and software

The in-text citations and references above are adapted from the reference template for software in Section 10.10 of the Publication Manual (American Psychological Association, 2020, Chapter 10). Although here we focus on ChatGPT, because these guidelines are based on the software template, they can be adapted to note the use of other large language models (e.g., Bard), algorithms, and similar software.

The reference and in-text citations for ChatGPT are formatted as follows:

• Parenthetical citation: (OpenAI, 2023)
• Narrative citation: OpenAI (2023)

Let’s break that reference down and look at the four elements (author, date, title, and source):

Author: The author of the model is OpenAI.

Date: The date is the year of the version you used. Following the template in Section 10.10, you need to include only the year, not the exact date. The version number provides the specific date information a reader might need.

Title: The name of the model is “ChatGPT,” so that serves as the title and is italicized in your reference, as shown in the template. Although OpenAI labels unique iterations (i.e., ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4), they are using “ChatGPT” as the general name of the model, with updates identified with version numbers.

The version number is included after the title in parentheses. The format for the version number in ChatGPT references includes the date because that is how OpenAI is labeling the versions. Different large language models or software might use different version numbering; use the version number in the format the author or publisher provides, which may be a numbering system (e.g., Version 2.0) or other methods.

Bracketed text is used in references for additional descriptions when they are needed to help a reader understand what’s being cited. References for a number of common sources, such as journal articles and books, do not include bracketed descriptions, but things outside of the typical peer-reviewed system often do. In the case of a reference for ChatGPT, provide the descriptor “Large language model” in square brackets. OpenAI describes ChatGPT-4 as a “large multimodal model,” so that description may be provided instead if you are using ChatGPT-4. Later versions and software or models from other companies may need different descriptions, based on how the publishers describe the model. The goal of the bracketed text is to briefly describe the kind of model to your reader.

Source: When the publisher name and the author name are the same, do not repeat the publisher name in the source element of the reference, and move directly to the URL. This is the case for ChatGPT. The URL for ChatGPT is https://chat.openai.com/chat . For other models or products for which you may create a reference, use the URL that links as directly as possible to the source (i.e., the page where you can access the model, not the publisher’s homepage).

Other questions about citing ChatGPT

You may have noticed the confidence with which ChatGPT described the ideas of brain lateralization and how the brain operates, without citing any sources. I asked for a list of sources to support those claims and ChatGPT provided five references—four of which I was able to find online. The fifth does not seem to be a real article; the digital object identifier given for that reference belongs to a different article, and I was not able to find any article with the authors, date, title, and source details that ChatGPT provided. Authors using ChatGPT or similar AI tools for research should consider making this scrutiny of the primary sources a standard process. If the sources are real, accurate, and relevant, it may be better to read those original sources to learn from that research and paraphrase or quote from those articles, as applicable, than to use the model’s interpretation of them.

We’ve also received a number of other questions about ChatGPT. Should students be allowed to use it? What guidelines should instructors create for students using AI? Does using AI-generated text constitute plagiarism? Should authors who use ChatGPT credit ChatGPT or OpenAI in their byline? What are the copyright implications ?

On these questions, researchers, editors, instructors, and others are actively debating and creating parameters and guidelines. Many of you have sent us feedback, and we encourage you to continue to do so in the comments below. We will also study the policies and procedures being established by instructors, publishers, and academic institutions, with a goal of creating guidelines that reflect the many real-world applications of AI-generated text.

For questions about manuscript byline credit, plagiarism, and related ChatGPT and AI topics, the APA Style team is seeking the recommendations of APA Journals editors. APA Style guidelines based on those recommendations will be posted on this blog and on the APA Style site later this year.

Update: APA Journals has published policies on the use of generative AI in scholarly materials .

We, the APA Style team humans, appreciate your patience as we navigate these unique challenges and new ways of thinking about how authors, researchers, and students learn, write, and work with new technologies.

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Related and recent

Comments are disabled due to your privacy settings. To re-enable, please adjust your cookie preferences.

APA Style Monthly

Subscribe to the APA Style Monthly newsletter to get tips, updates, and resources delivered directly to your inbox.

Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.

APA Style Guidelines

Browse APA Style writing guidelines by category

• Abbreviations
• Bias-Free Language
• Capitalization
• In-Text Citations
• Italics and Quotation Marks
• Paper Format
• Punctuation
• Research and Publication
• Spelling and Hyphenation
• Tables and Figures

Full index of topics

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the step pyramid of saqqara

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

Affiliation Paleotechnic., Paris, France

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Univ. Grenoble Alpes, INRAE, CNRS, IRD, Grenoble INP, IGE, Grenoble, France

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization

Affiliation Sicame Group, Arnac-Pompadour, France

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation CEDETE—Centre d’études sur le Développement des Territoires et l’Environnement, Université d’Orléans, Orléans, France

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Validation

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization

Affiliation AtoutsCarto, Bourges, France

Roles Methodology, Project administration

Affiliation Verilux International, Brienon-sur-Armançon, France

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation

• Xavier Landreau, 
• Guillaume Piton, 
• Guillaume Morin, 
• Pascal Bartout, 
• Laurent Touchart, 
• Christophe Giraud, 
• Jean-Claude Barre, 
• Cyrielle Guerin, 
• Alexis Alibert, 
• Charly Lallemand

• Published: August 5, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690
• Reader Comments

The Step Pyramid of Djoser in Saqqara, Egypt, is considered the oldest of the seven monumental pyramids built about 4,500 years ago. From transdisciplinary analysis, it was discovered that a hydraulic lift may have been used to build the pyramid. Based on our mapping of the nearby watersheds, we show that one of the unexplained massive Saqqara structures, the Gisr el-Mudir enclosure, has the features of a check dam with the intent to trap sediment and water. The topography beyond the dam suggests a possible ephemeral lake west of the Djoser complex and water flow inside the ’Dry Moat’ surrounding it. In the southern section of the moat, we show that the monumental linear rock-cut structure consisting of successive, deep compartments combines the technical requirements of a water treatment facility: a settling basin, a retention basin, and a purification system. Together, the Gisr el-Mudir and the Dry Moat’s inner south section work as a unified hydraulic system that improves water quality and regulates flow for practical purposes and human needs. Finally, we identified that the Step Pyramid’s internal architecture is consistent with a hydraulic elevation mechanism never reported before. The ancient architects may have raised the stones from the pyramid centre in a volcano fashion using the sediment-free water from the Dry Moat’s south section. Ancient Egyptians are famous for their pioneering and mastery of hydraulics through canals for irrigation purposes and barges to transport huge stones. This work opens a new line of research: the use of hydraulic force to erect the massive structures built by Pharaohs.

Citation: Landreau X, Piton G, Morin G, Bartout P, Touchart L, Giraud C, et al. (2024) On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the step pyramid of saqqara. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0306690. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690

Editor: Joe Uziel, Israel Antiquities Authority, ISRAEL

Received: December 7, 2023; Accepted: June 22, 2024; Published: August 5, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Landreau et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. The computer codes are available upon request.

Funding: The Sicame Group, The Atoutscarto Company and The Verilux Company provided support in the form of salaries for GM, CG and J-CM, respectively. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

Competing interests: The authors have read the journal’s policy and have the following competing interests: GM, CG and J-CM are paid employees of The Sicame Group, The Atoutscarto Company and The Verilux Company, respectively. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

1 Introduction

The funerary complex of King Djoser, built at Saqqara in Egypt around 2680 B.C., is considered a significant milestone in monumental architecture. It is the first to disclose two crucial innovations: a pyramid shape for the pharaoh’s grave and the exclusive use of fully dressed stones for masonry. In practice, it is also revolutionary in the ability to extract and raise stones by millions before stacking them with precision [ 1 ]. Djoser’s complex visible achievements are such that its architect, Vizier, and Great Priest of Ra, Imhotep, was deified by the New Kingdom.

The knowledge and innovations implemented in the Djoser mortuary complex profoundly influenced future developments and were widely perfected throughout the Old Kingdom’s III rd and IV th Dynasties, i . e . circa 2680–2460 B.C. These developments resulted in a substantial increase in the megaliths’ size [ 2 ], leading to pyramids of spectacular dimensions, such as those of the Meidum, Dahshur, and Giza plateaus. In less than 150 years, the average weight of the typical large stones was thus multiplied by ≈8 and went from ≈300 kg for Djoser’s pyramid to more than 2.5 tons for Chephren’s pyramid’s structural blocks [ 3 ]. For the largest lintels, the weight increases by two orders of magnitude, with several blocks of ≈50 – 100 tons for Cheops’ pyramid. On this short timeframe on the scale of human history, Egyptians carried and raised some 25 million tons of stones [ 4 ] to build seven monumental pyramids. Assuming an annual work schedule of 300 days at a rate of 10 hours/day, meaning 450,000 hours spread over less than 150 years, this requires a technical and logistical organization capable, on average, of cutting, moving, and adjusting about 50 tons of stone blocks per hour. Even if one admits that not every pyramid’s blocks are fitted with millimeter precision, the amount of work accomplished is truly remarkable. Interestingly, the pyramids later built in Egypt tended to be smaller with time and never reached the volume of the Old Kingdom’s monumental structures again.

As authentic sources from the working sphere of pyramid architects are currently lacking, no generally accepted wholistic model for pyramid construction exists yet. Although many detailed publications dedicated to pyramid-building procedures have given tangible elements [ 5 , 6 ], they usually explain more recent, better documented, but also smaller pyramids [ 7 ]. These techniques could include ramps, cranes, winches, toggle lifts, hoists, pivots, or a combination of them [ 8 – 10 ]. Studies of the pyramid’s construction sites also revealed a high level of expertise in managing the hydraulic and hydrological environment, such as utilizing waterways to deliver materials, constructing ports and locks, or setting up irrigation systems [ 11 , 12 ]. These achievements have led some scholars to refer to ancient Egypt as an ‘early hydraulic civilization [ 11 ].’ However, there is actually very little multidisciplinary analysis combining the rich archaeological findings on pyramids with other disciplines such as hydrology, hydraulics, geotechnics, paleoclimatology, or civil engineering [ 9 ]. Therefore, the topic of water force in the context of pyramid construction remains insufficiently addressed in the academic literature.

Moreover, a second question accentuates the enigma: the Pharaohs who built these pyramids are missing. Until now, neither written record nor physical evidence reports the discovery of one of the III rd and IV th Dynasties’ Pharaohs. Old Kingdom’s ‘big’ pyramids’ rooms were allegedly plundered [ 13 – 15 ] during the millennia that followed the construction of the pyramids, leaving little evidence behind [ 12 ]. The III rd and IV th Dynasties’ rooms present little or no funerary attributes, such as those observed in other high-dignitary figures’ tombs contemporary to the period [ 16 , 17 ], with no King’s remains found inside. In addition, the walls of the pyramids’ chambers do not exhibit any hieroglyphs, paintings, engravings, or drawings, which would allow us to qualify them as funerary with certainty. Despite this lack of evidence, many authors [ 18 ] still support that these rooms can be attributed to Pharaohs’ burials mainly based on royal cartouches or Kings’ names found elsewhere within the pyramid or nearby temples.

Over the recent years, Dormion & Verd’Hurt [ 19 , 20 ], Hamilton [ 21 – 24 ] or others [ 1 , 25 ] were among the first to consider possible non-funerary functions of pyramids’ internal layouts by pointing out some architectural inconsistencies and highlighting the high degree of complexity of several structures, irrelevant for a burial chamber. Their analysis provided both chambers and gallery systems with a technical dimension, emphasizing a level of engineering on the part of the ancient builders that is quite remarkable and sometimes challenges any apparent explanation. This technical level is at once reflected in the geometry of the rooms and ducts, as well as in the stonework, which includes materials selection, extraction, cutting, and then assembling with exceptional accuracy [ 20 ]. This precision involved several advanced sub-techniques, such as inter-block mortar joint realization [ 26 – 29 ] or stone polishing with flatness and roughness values that reach levels of contemporary know-how. Apart from surfaces and interfaces, the builders’ technical ability is also evident throughout sophisticated mechanical systems set up in the pyramids [ 30 ], as swivel stone flaps’ designs in the Meidum and Bent pyramids [ 21 , 24 ] or tilted portcullises found in the Bent pyramid, as well as at Giza [ 20 ]. These elements suggest that, rather than an aesthetic rendering or a funerary use for these layouts, ancient Egyptians intended technical functions for some walls, tunnels, corridors, shafts, and chambers where more straightforward existing techniques were insufficient.

In summary, the analysis of the pyramids’ construction and the investigation of their internal layouts seem to require more research to provide a wholistic explanation to their purpose. This study aims to provide a fresh look at these topics by applying an alternative, multi-disciplinary, wholistic approach. It revisits the Old Kingdom’s pyramids’ construction methodology and seeks to explain the significance of internal layouts during construction. Based on current archaeological knowledge, we demonstrate that the Saqqara’s topography and the layout of several structures are consistent with the hypothesis that a hydraulic system was used to build the pyramid. The paper is divided into three main sections that analyze the current scientific literature to address the following inquiries: (i) Was the plateau of Saqqara supplied with water? (ii) If so, how was it possibly stored and treated? and (iii) How was it used to build the pyramid? A discussion and some concluding remarks and perspectives follow.

2 The saqqara’s hydrologic network

Our study began with the postulate that the larger Cheops’ and Chephren’s pyramids of Giza plateau were the outcomes of technical progress from previous pyramids, with the Step Pyramid as a technological precursor. While many literature studies focus on the construction of Cheops’ pyramid, we found it more relevant to examine the building techniques used for the Step Pyramid first. This would provide insight into the processes used by ancient builders that were later refined in subsequent pyramids. As a first approach, we analyzed potential reasons for the specific building of King Djoser’s Complex on the Saqqara Plateau.

2.1 Water resource from the desert wadis

Although detailed measurements of the Nile flood levels have been reported since the V th Dynasty (2480 B.C.) [ 31 – 33 ], there is very little information available about the hydrology of its desert tributaries, known as ’wadis’, in ancient Egypt. Sedimentological evidence of heavy rainfalls and flash floods exists [ 31 , 34 ] but little is known beyond that.

Determining the rainfall regime that the Saqqara region experienced about 4,700 years B.P. is challenging and uncertain. Past studies demonstrated that, from about 11,000 to 5,000 B.P, during the so-called ‘Green Sahara’ period, the whole Sahara was much wetter than today, and the landscape was savannah rather than desert [ 35 , 36 ]. Around 4500–4800 years B.P. too, the Eastern Mediterranean region was wetter than it is now, despite drying up later [ 37 – 39 ]. A range of annual precipitation value of 50–150 mm/year is assumed in the following calculation to perform crude computations of water resource. It covers the range between the >150 mm/year suggested by Kuper & Kropelin [ 40 ] for the end of the Green Sahara period, before the subsequent drier period, during which rainfall decreased to <50 mm/year. The range of variability, i . e . 50 to 150 mm/yr is also consistent with the typical inter-annual rainfall variability observed in the region [ 38 ].

Then, current hydrological monitoring on Egyptian wadis located further to the north and experiencing comparable annual rainfall ( i . e ., 100–200 mm/yr) showed that only 1–3% of this mean annual precipitation was measured as runoff, i.e., surface flows [ 41 ]. This average range is hereafter used for conservative, first-order estimations of available water volume, referred hereafter to as the ‘water resource’. Note that the infrequent, most intense events can reach 50 mm of rainfall and trigger devastating flash floods where the runoff coefficients have been measured up to 30%, i . e ., one order of magnitude higher than the mean annual [ 41 – 43 ]. Note that these water resource and flash flood hydrology estimates neglect that the soils were probably richer in clay and silt just after the Green Sahara period, with several millennia of a wetter climate and savannah landscape [ 35 , 36 ], which would increase the runoff coefficient and available surface water resource in the wadis.

2.2 The Saqqara site: a plateau with a water supply

The Saqqara necropolis is located on a limestone plateau on the west bank of the Nile River, about 180 km from the Mediterranean Sea ( Fig 1 ). The entire site lies in the desert, less than two kilometers from the plateau’s edge (elevation 40–55 m ASL— Above Sea Level ), which overlooks the Nile floodplain (height ≈ 20 m ASL). Further to the west, the desert rises gently for about 20 km (hills’ top elevation ≈ 200–300 m ASL).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

(Satellite image: Airbus Pléiades, 2021-07-02, reprinted from Airbus D&S SAS library under a CC BY license, with permission from Michael Chemouny, original copyright 2021).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g001

The reasons behind the construction of the Djoser complex at Saqqara remain unclear. The contribution of economic, socio-political, and religious factors was previously highlighted [ 44 , 45 ], but environmental factors were also possibly influential. In 2020, Wong provided evidence that the climate, geology, and hydrology would have influenced building choices and may have contributed to, or perhaps accelerated, the emergence of stone architecture on the Saqqara plateau [ 37 ].

From a geological standpoint, the layered structure of the limestone at Saqqara was indeed stressed as a favorable factor for excavating large amounts of construction stones [ 46 , 47 ]. These layers, which consist of 30–60 cm thick sand-rich calcareous beds alternated with calcareous clay and marl layers, made it easy to extract the limestone blocks from their parent beds by vertical cuttings, the original thickness being reflected in the building stones’ thickness of Djoser’s complex.

From a hydrological standpoint, the Abusir wadi is considered a second environmental factor that strongly influenced the Early Dynastic development of the Saqqara necropolis at least [ 45 , 48 – 50 ]. The Abusir wadi is the ephemeral stream draining the hills west of Saqqara ( Fig 1 ) . Before this study, academic research mainly focused on the downstream part of the wadi [ 45 , 48 – 50 ], namely the Abusir Lake [ 51 ] located north of Saqqara Plateau. However, the upstream portion has remained undocumented.

In order to analyze the relationships between the Abusir wadi and the Step Pyramid’s construction project, the drainage networks west of the Saqqara area were mapped for the first time to the best of our knowledge, using various satellite imagery ( Fig 1 ) and Digital Elevation Models (see S1 Fig in S2 File ).

A paleo-drainage system can be identified upstream of the Gisr el-Mudir structure as the origin of the Abusir wadi ( Fig 1 , pink line). The boundaries of this runoff system form a catchment area never reported so far, although easily recognizable from the geomorphological imprints of surface paleochannels in the desert and on historical maps [ 52 ]. Although it currently has a 15 km 2 surface area, we cannot rule out the possibility that the drainage divides shifted and changed due to land alterations and aeolian sand deposits over the past 4,500 years.

The current catchment summit is about 110 m ASL, giving the Abusir wadi a 1% average slope over its slightly more than 6 km length. In the field of hydrology, a 1% gradient is described as ‘rather steep’. With such steep slopes, transportation of sand and gravel is expected during flashfloods, which can cause severe downstream damage (scouring or burying of structures, filling of excavations and ponding areas). In comparison, irrigation channels are rather at least ten times less steep (about 0.1%), and the Nile slope is less than 0.01% (less than 200m of elevation gain between Aswan and Cairo).

2.3 The Wadi Taflah: A possible complementary water supply

Reported since the early 1800s, a former tributary to the Nile called the Bahr Bela Ma [ 53 , 54 ] or ‘ Wadi Taflah’ flowed parallel to the Abusir wadi catchment, less than two kilometers south of the Saqqara plateau. From satellite imagery, we identified that the Wadi Taflah arises from a drainage area of almost 400 km 2 and consists of three main branches ( Fig 2 , numbered black dots) still visible from the desert’s geomorphological marks. This network is also visible on the radar imagery provided by Paillou [ 55 ] that can penetrate multiple meters of sand ( S2 Fig in S2 File ). The similarity of the optical and radar drainage patterns confirms the existence and old age of this hydrological network.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g002

Although no canal was detected from the satellite data, the close proximity of Abusir wadi with the Wadi Taflah ( Fig 2 ) is intriguing and raises the question about a potential ancient, artificial connection between them. According to the 18 th -century maps published by Savary [ 54 ], the Wadi Taflah was ‘closed by an ancient King of Egypt.’ Such a testimony, although imprecise, could suggest the construction of a water diversion by a former ruler. A geophysical investigation could help to find such a structure if existing. The drainage area of Wadi Taflah covers nearly 400 km 2 at an elevation >58 m ASL. This elevation is high enough to allow the diversion of the drainage area toward the Abusir wadi. This would result in an increase in the drained area and associated availability of water resources by a factor of >25 times. Based on the hydrological conditions described in section 2.1, the estimated water resource from Abusir wadi and Wadi Taflah is crudely between 7,500 to 68,000 m 3 /year and 200,000 to 1,800,000 m 3 /year, respectively.

2.4 The Abusir wadi: A structural element in the early dynastic Saqqara’s development

According to the Saqqara topography ( Fig 3 ), the Abusir wadi flowed through the Gisr el-Mudir enclosure before heading north towards the Nile floodplain, where it used to feed an oxbow lake, the Abusir Lake [ 51 ]. With such a localization, the Gisr el-Mudir walls literally dam the Abusir wadi valley’s entire width. The sparse vegetation only growing in the valley bottom upstream of Gisr el-Mudir and not elsewhere in the area evidences this damming and interception of surface and subsurface flows ( Fig 4A , green line). This slight moist area is dominated by plants commonly found in desert margins and wadis, such as Panicum thurgidum and Alhagi graecorum [ 56 ], and is typical of hypodermal flows.

Contour lines extracted from the 1:5,000 topographical map [ 52 ] “Le Caire, sheet H22”.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g003

a. The Gisr el-Mudir check dam (Satellite image: Airbus Pléiades, 2021-07-02, reprinted from Airbus D&S SAS library under a CC BY license, with permission from Michael Chemouny, original copyright 2021); b.: Digital Elevation Model generated from the 1:5,000 topographical map “Le Caire, sheet H22”.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g004

Downstream of the Gisr el-Mudir, the Abusir wadi joins the Saqqara Plateau. Its boundaries are defined to the south by an outcropping limestone ridge and to the east by the Sekhemkhet and Djoser’s enclosures ( Fig 3 ).

The landform of this area seems inconsistent with a pure fluvial formation. Instead, the very flat topography on about 2–2.5 km 2 , according to the Saqqara Geophysics Survey Project (SGSP) [ 57 – 60 ] and possibly allowed some ephemeral ponding water which may have resulted in an episodic upper Abusir lake after the most intense rainfalls. However, due to the several-meter deep wind-blown and alluvial sand cover accumulated over the past millennia [ 57 ], the riverbed altitudes during Djoser’s reign are challenging to establish without further investigations, and only broad patterns can be determined from the local topography [ 52 ].

As with many other small wadis, the Early Dynastic hydrology of the Abusir wadi remains largely unknown. According to fluvial sediment analysis in the Abusir Lake area, the Abusir wadi was probably a perennial stream during the Old Kingdom period [ 51 ]. Although the climate is hot and arid nowadays, several studies support a more humid environment during the Old Kingdom [ 34 ] . Multiple strands of evidence indeed suggest that Egypt experienced considerable rainfalls around the reign of Djoser, resulting in frequent flooding and heavy runoffs on the Saqqara Plateau. This climatic feature is supported by sedimentary deposits resulting from flowing water of ‘considerable kinetic force’ contemporary to Djoser’s reign [ 61 , 62 ] . According to Trzciński et al.[ 34 ], the strongly cemented structure L3 found in the Great Trench surrounding the Djoser Complex was due to cyclical watering while the high content of Fe3+ indicates that the region experienced intensive weathering in a warm and humid environment. In 2020, Wong concluded that the ‘ intriguing possibility that the Great Trench that surrounds the Djoser complex may have been filled with water ’ during Djoser’s reign [ 37 ]. If so, this might explain why tombs were built on the northern part of the Saqqara plateau which has a higher altitude [ 45 ] and nothing was constructed inside the Trench until the reign of Userkaf and Unas (V th Dynasty).

3. The saqqara’s water management system

3.1 the gisr el-mudir check dam.

Reported at least since the 18 th century [ 63 ] and extensively described within a decade of a geophysical survey by Mathieson et al ., see also [ 45 ] for a summary, the Gisr el-Mudir is a rectangular enclosure located a few hundred meters west of the Djoser’s complex ( Fig 3 , Fig 4A & 4B ). This monumental structure has a footprint of about 360 m x 620 m, i . e ., larger than the Djoser complex (545 m x 277 m). The walls have an estimated volume of >100,000 m 3 (SGSP, 1992–1993 report), meaning about one-third of the Step Pyramid’s volume. Field inspection and geophysical results from the SGSP [ 57 ] found no construction inside except for a couple of more recent, small graves, thus confirming that the enclosure is mainly empty. Moreover, several elements in the building suggest that this structure predated the Step Pyramid’s complex and was tentatively dated to the late II nd or early III rd Dynasty [ 57 , 64 ], which might turn it into the oldest substantial stone structure in Egypt discovered so far.

Before this study, several conflicting theories about the Gisr el-Mudir’s purpose were put forward [ 59 ]: e . g ., an unfinished pyramid complex (but the lack of a central structure made it improbable to be a funerary monument), a guarded fortress [ 65 ] protecting the Saqqara necropolis from nomadic Bedouin incursions, an embankment to raise a monument to a higher level [ 66 ], a celebration arena [ 64 , 67 ], or even a cattle enclosure. However, given the low level of exploratory work afforded to the structure, no generally accepted explanation exists yet, and its purpose has remained more conjectural than substantiated.

In light of the upstream watershed and its transversal position across the Abusir River, the Gisr el-Mudir’s western wall meets the essential criteria of a check dam, i . e ., a dam intending to manage sediment and water fluxes [ 68 , 69 ]. This comparison is particularly striking regarding its cross-section ( Fig 5 ). According to Mathieson et al . [ 59 ], the basic structure of this wall consists of a hollow construction of two rough-hewn limestone masonry skin-walls, ≈3.2 m high, separated by a 15 m interspace filled with three layers of materials extracted from the surrounding desert bedrock [ 70 ] and cunningly arranged. The first layer ( Fig 5 , ‘ A ’ dot) is made of roughly laid local limestone blocks forming a buttress against the inside of the facing blocks. The secondary fill ( B ) comprises coarse sand and medium to large limestone fragments. Then, the third fill ( C ) consists of rough to fine sand and silt, small limestone fragments, and chippings with pebble and flint nodules. Finally, these A, B, and C backfill layers are positioned symmetrically to the median axis of the wall.

Figure adapted from [ 58 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g005

Civil engineering was used during the Old Kingdom to protect settlements from flash floods, such as the Heit el-Ghurab (’Wall of the Crow’) safeguarding the village of the pyramid builders at Giza [ 71 ]. Regarding the Gisr el-Mudir structure, the abovementioned elements strikingly echo the transversal profile and slope protection of another famous Old Kingdom structure: the Sadd el-Kafara dam built on the Wadi al-Garawi , a colossal building found to be contemporary to that of the Gisr el-Mudir [ 72 – 74 ]. Both structures present the technical signature of zoned earthen dams: a wide embankment made of a central impervious core surrounded by transition filters, i . e ., filling material with coarser grain size, preventing erosion, migration, and potential piping of the core fine material due to seepage. The semi-dressed limestone walls stabilized the inner material and protected it against erosion when water flowed against and above the dam. Both dams have much broader profiles than modern dams. This oversizing could be due to the unavailability of contemporary compaction systems or an empirical and conservative structural design. They both have narrower cores of fine material at the bottom of the dam than at their crest, contradicting modern design [ 75 ]. This can be attributed to the construction phasing that would have started by raising the sidewalls buttressed against the coarse and intermediate filling ( B and C fills in Fig 5 ), followed by a phase of filling the wide core with finer, compacted material [ 72 ].

Finally, the eastern wall’s north-south profile ( Fig 6 , line A-B ) presents a parabolic profile relevant to guide the flows to the basin’s center formed by Gisr el-Mudir. This guidance would have prevented the dam failure by outflanking during flooding events when the dam outlet was saturated. We estimate that the accumulated water crossed the dam through an outlet likely located at the valley’s lowest elevation, i . e ., near 48.7 m ASL ( G1 in Figs 4B and Fig 6 ). In summary, the Gisr el-Mudir’s western wall likely acted as a first check dam to the Abusir wadi flows.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g006

The excavations performed on the eastern wall of the Gisr el-Mudir highlighted a lower structural quality [ 45 ]. Its shape is similar to that of the western wall, with a distinctive parabolic profile ( Fig 6 , line C-D ). Furthermore, it discloses two topographical singularities: first, its overall altitude is a few meters lower than the western wall ( Fig 7A ). Then, in the southern part of the eastern wall, a geophysics anomaly ( G2 in Figs 4B and Fig 6 ) was found to be a series of massive, roughly cut, ‘L’-shaped megaliths [ 45 , 66 ]. Before our study, these megaliths were thought to possibly be the remains of a monumental gateway–due to their similarities with the Djoser’s complex enclosure’s entrance–but their purpose was not specified [ 66 ]. According to our analysis, these megaliths could be the side elements of the water outlets, possibly slit openings [ 76 ] that were likely closed off by wood beams but could be opened to drain the basin. They are consistently found near a trench that is 2.2 m deep [ 45 ], which we believe is possibly the canal that guided outflowing water. In a nutshell, the eastern wall likely acted as a second check dam to the Abusir flows.

a. West-east elevation profile of the Gisr el-Mudir structure. b: Schematic reconstitution of the profile with water flow.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g007

In addition to the two dams formed by the western and eastern walls, the Gisr el-Mudir enclosure forms a basin ( Fig 4 ). It is closed to the north by another wall made of limestone blocks, though not very tall (likely <2m) because it is built on a natural ridge [ 45 ]. The basin’s southern boundary is also mostly made of a natural ridge. The possible absence of a masonry wall on certain portions on this side was unexplained by previous analyses [ 45 ]. However, it makes perfect sense when considering a reservoir function. Anchoring dams against side slopes is indeed the standard approach to guide flows and prevent outflanking [ 68 ].

In essence, the Gisr el-Mudir enclosure exhibits the defining features of a check dam ( Fig 7B ). The catchment it intercepts is large enough (15 km 2 ), plus eventual water derivation from the Wadi Taflah to produce flash floods transporting significant amounts of gravel, sand, mud, and debris due to its slope during intense rainfalls. The valley upstream of the western wall likely served as a first reservoir where the coarsest gravels tended to deposit. The overflowing water then filled the inner basin of the Gisr el-Mudir, where coarse sand would again deposit. Assuming a storage depth between 1 and 2 meters, the retention capacity of the basin would be approximately 220,000–440,000 m 3 . This volume is in line with the overall water volume of a flash flood that could be produced by the Abusir wadi, which is estimated to be about 75,000–225,000 m 3 , assuming 50 mm of rainfall and a 0.30 runoff coefficient. This key, first structure of the Saqqara hydraulic system would have then delivered clear water downstream in normal time, as well as muddy water with an eventually suspended load of fine sand and clay during rainfall events.

3.2 The deep Trench’s water treatment system

3.2.1 general configuration..

The Djoser’s Complex is surrounded by a vast excavation area, commonly referred to as the ’Dry Moat’ since Swelim spotted its outlines [ 77 , 78 ] ( Fig 3 , blue strip). The Dry Moat is alleged to be a continuous trench cut in the bedrock, up to 50 m wide and ≈3 km long, enclosing an area of ≈600 m by ≈750 m around the Djoser complex [ 77 , 79 , 80 ]. When considering an average depth of 20 m for the four sides of the trench [ 61 ], the total excavated volume is estimated at ≈3.5 Mm 3 , approximately ten times the Step Pyramid‘s volume. Due to the thick cover of sand and debris [ 61 ] accumulated over the past millennia, its precise geometry is incompletely characterized. The moat’s east and south channels are particularly debated [ 61 ].

According to Swelim, the moat’s south channel probably split into two parts, known as the Inner and Outer south channels [ 78 ] ( Fig 8 , blue strips). The Inner south channel is relatively shallow (5–7 m deep), 25–30 m wide, and spans approximately 350 m parallel to the southern wall of Djoser’s complex.

Water from the Abusir Lake can follow two parallel circuits.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g008

The ‘Deep Trench’ [ 81 ] ( Fig 8 , red rectangles and dotted lines) is built inside the Inner south channel, along its south wall. It is a ≈27 m-deep, 3 m-wide, and hundreds of meter-long rock-cut channel with several ‘compartments’. So far, only about 240 m [ 78 ] of its probable 410 m length have been subject to archaeological excavations in 1937–1938 [ 78 ], 1937–1945 [ 81 ], and 1975 [ 82 ]. Consequently, approximately 170 m remains unexplored, mainly due to the presence of the later Old Kingdom two groups of mastabas built above the trench and at risk of collapse if submitted to underground excavation (transparent grey parts in Fig 8 ).

Generally, two leading theories are highlighted in the literature to explain the purpose of the trench: (i) a quarry for the Djoser’s complex [ 47 , 83 ], or (ii) a spiritual function [ 78 , 84 , 85 ]. However, over recent years, authors have pointed out several specificities in the trench’s architectural layout, which seem irrelevant in a religious or mining context [ 1 , 86 , 87 ]. In particular, on the mining aspect, several authors estimate [ 45 , 86 ] that the form of the track suggests that the extraction of stones was not its sole or even primary function, as it does not match with the ancient Egyptian quarrying methods. Reader also considers that some parts of the trench which are ~27 m deep and covered with a rocky ceiling, are wholly unrealistic for quarrying operations and unlikely to have required the paving found near the trench’s bottom [ 45 ]. This point is further emphasized by the narrow width of the excavated Deep Trench (3m), which is impractical in a mining scenario.

On the spiritual aspect, Kuraszkiewicz suggests that the trench may have developed a ritual significance as a gathering place for the souls of the nobles to serve the dead King [ 86 ]. Monnier [ 1 ] considers that the discovery of several niches in the channel does not fully demonstrate the moat’s religious purpose and considers it secondary. The trench’s ritual significance is also regarded as secondary by Reader [ 45 ], who suggests the ritual aspects developed only after the complex’s construction and do not reflect the original function of the structure.

In 2020, based on the archaeological, geological, and climatic evidence, Wong was the first to introduce the idea that the trench may have had a completely different function, being filled with runoff water following downpours [ 37 ]. If so, this would explain why it was not until the reigns of Unas and Userkaf (V th Dynasty) that new graves occupied the moat. The onset of drier climatic conditions [ 31 , 88 ] around the end of the IV th Dynasty would have created more favorable conditions for new constructions inside the moat. Despite the potential impact of Wong’s assumption, it did not receive much attention in the literature. Nonetheless, the current authors believe that Wong’s conclusions make sense when considering Saqqara’s downstream localization of a watershed.

3.2.2 The deep Trench: A series of rock-cut compartments built in a hydrological corridor.

The Inner south channel and the Deep Trench are built inside the Unas Valley, a hydrological corridor connecting the Abusir wadi plain to the Nile floodplain ( Fig 3 ). Both were thus possibly submitted to (un)controlled flooding [ 34 , 61 ] from the Abusir wadi plain.

The Deep Trench connects at least three massive subterranean compartments [ 45 , 47 ] ( Fig 8 , red parts) meticulously carved out with precisely cut surfaces [ 78 ] ( Fig 9 ) and joined by a tunnel [ 77 ] . A fourth compartment, retroactively named compartment-0 ( Fig 10 ), likely exists [ 45 , 78 ]. On a large scale, the perfect geometric alignment of these compartments is remarkable, as well as their parallelism with the Djoser’s complex and their bottom level similar to those of the southern and northern shafts (≈27 m ASL). These spatial relationships have led some authors to consider that the trench was created as a part of Djoser’s Complex [ 86 , 89 , 90 ]. This assumption has been reinforced by Deslandes’ discoveries of at least two east-west pipes, about 80 m long, connecting the Djoser’s Complex’s subterranean layouts to the Dry Moat’s eastern side [ 91 ].

a: View from the west; b: View from the east. The workers in the background provide a sense of the structure’s immense scale and technicity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g009

View of the south face.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g010

Taken together, the Deep Trench architecture highlights technical proficiency and suggests that the ancient Egyptians intended a technical function rather than a spiritual one. Surprisingly, despite the available clues, the Deep Trench has never undergone detailed engineering studies to analyze its features and identify its purpose. The following sections suggest a hydraulic rationale behind the trench’s internal layout (more details in the Supplement ).

3.2.3 Consistency of the Deep Trench architecture with a water treatment system.

Being largely described in the literature [ 77 , 86 , 92 ] , the compartments’ layouts are presented in detail in the Supplement . Considering its architecture and geographical location, the Dry Moat’s southern section combines the technical requirements of a water treatment system, including sedimentation, retention, and purification. Fig 10 illustrates a comprehensive outline of the installation’s functioning process. Similarly to the Gisr el-Mudir, we found that the Deep Trench compartments likely served to transfer water with low suspended sediment concentration to the downstream compartments by overflowing. The process of using a series of connected tanks to filter water and remove sediment is an ancient technique that has been extensively documented in archaeological and scientific literature [ 93 – 96 ]. This method has been employed for centuries to clean water and has played a significant role in the development of water treatment practices.

Compartment-0 presents the minimum requirements of a settling basin (considerable length and width, low entry slope, position at the entry of Unas hydrological corridor) whose purpose is to facilitate the coarse particles’ settling that would overflow from Gisr el-Mudir during heavy rainfalls. The descending ramp along the south wall identified by Swelim [ 97 ] may have permitted workers to dredge the basin and remove the accumulated sediments along the east wall ( Fig 10 ) . The very probable connection [ 45 , 97 ] between compartment-0 and compartment-1, blocked with rough masonry ( Fig 9B and S3 Fig in S2 File ), is consistent with an outlet overflowing structure. Additionally, when the flow rate in compartment-0 was too high, the tunnel or even the northern portion of the trench may have been used as a spillway bypass to evacuate excess water toward the eastern portion of the Unas wadi valley ( Fig 8 , safety circuit).

Compartment-1 is then consistent with a retention basin with > 3000 m 3 capacity ( Fig 10 , left part). The bottom stone paving with mortar joints probably limited water seepage through the bedrock. Its eastern end could go until the compartment-2 [ 45 ] to form a single compartment, but this point remains debated [ 78 , 97 ] .

Compartment-2’s is, unfortunately, largely unexplored ( Fig 10 ). Its downstream position might indicate a second retention basin or possibly an extension [ 45 ] of the first one. The western part of this compartment (stairs area) perfectly aligns with the base levels of the Djoser’s complex south and north shafts, which points towards a connection between the three [ 86 ] . If so, it would be aligned with the recently discovered pipe of a 200 m-long tunnel linking the bottom of Djoser’s Complex’s southern and northern shafts [ 91 ] (see next section, Fig 11 ). Compartment-2 would then be another, or an extended, retention basin equipped with a water outlet toward the north.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g011

Compartment-3 ( Fig 10 , right part) is likely a side purification basin for drinking water. Its position as an appendix of the primary water circuit connecting Gisr el-Mudir to Djoser’s complex seems optimal to minimize water circulation and maximize water-settling time, thus increasing its purification. The second and third sections likely allowed further settling of particles and would have served as reservoirs during dry periods. The relatively smooth walls of the whole structure would have hindered the growth of microbes, plants, and other contaminants, thereby helping maintain the water’s cleanliness [ 98 ] . Four surface wells allowed access to the end of the last compartment where the water, kept clear and fresh in the shadow of this subterranean monumental cistern, could be used by the building site workforce [ 99 ] .

The excavated volume of the Deep Trench is greater than 14,000 m 3 [ 77 , 86 , 92 ]. If we assume that most of the water available in the Wadi Taflah was diverted toward Saqqara, this volume could be filled about a dozen to more than one hundred times per year on average. We hypothesize a typical filling level of 45 m ASL in the Deep Trench, but an accurate topographical survey is lacking, and the maximum water level could vary between 40–52 m ASL, according to the surrounding terrain elevation.

In essence, we discovered and highlighted for the first time that the Deep Trench’s position and design are consistent with possible use as a water treatment and storage system capable of cleaning and storing thousands of cubic meters of water.

4. The central hydraulic lift system

4.1 overview of the djoser’s complex’ substructure.

The internal and external architecture of the Djoser’s Complex is thoroughly documented [ 1 , 3 , 100 , 101 ]. The Supplement provides an overview of this structure. Basically, the six-step Step Pyramid itself stands slightly off-center in a rectangular enclosure toward the south and reaches a height of approximately 60 m ( Fig 11 ). The pyramid consists of more than 2.3 million limestone blocks, each weighing, on average [ 2 ], 300 kg, resulting in a total estimated weight of 0.69 million tons and a volume of ≈330,400 m 3 .

The substructure features at least 13 shafts, including two significantly sizeable twin shafts located at the north and south of the complex ( Fig 11 , insets 3&4), and an extensive and well-organized network of galleries descending up to 45 m below ground level [ 102 ]. The north shaft is surrounded by four comb-shaped structures distributed on each side and angled 90° apart. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) revealed that the twin shaft layouts are connected [ 91 , 102 ] by a 200 m-long tunnel. Moreover, at least two of the twelve shafts on the pyramid’s east side are connected to the supposed eastern section of the Dry Moat by two 80 m long pipes ( Fig 11 and Supplement ).

From our 3D models, we estimate that ancient architects extracted more than 30,000 tons of limestone from the bedrock to dig the whole underground structure. The total length of the tunnels and subterranean rooms combined is ~6.8 km. However, its layout and purpose remain primarily poorly known and debated [ 6 ].

4.2 The connected twin shafts

The ‘north shaft’ is located under the pyramid of Djoser and is almost aligned with its summit. This shaft is ≈28 m deep and has a square shape with 7 m sides. Its bottom part widens to ≈10 m on the last, deepest 6 m, forming a chamber ( Fig 12 and S6 Fig in S2 File ). On its upper part, the shaft extends above the ground level by at least four meters inside the Step Pyramid in the shape of a hemispherical vault that was recently reinforced ( Fig 11 , inset 5 ). This upper part inside the pyramid body remains unexplored. However, as noticed by Lauer, the shaft sides above ground level display comparable masonry to that of the southern shaft, indicating a possible upward extension [ 3 ]. On the pyramid’s north side, a steep trench with stairs provides access to the shaft.

a.: Granite box of Djoser’s complex north shaft serving as an opening-closing system for the water flow coming from side tunnels -source: [ 113 ]. b.: Limestone piles supporting the box - source: [ 3 ]. c: Diagram of the North Shaft plug system. Redrawn from Lauer sketches [ 108 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g012

The ‘south shaft’ is located ~200 m south of the north shaft, close to the Deep Trench ( Fig 11 , inset 1 ). Its dimensions and internal layout are broadly similar to the north shaft’s. The substructure of the south shaft is entered through a west-facing tunnel-like corridor with a staircase that descends about 30 m before opening up inside the shaft. The staircase then continues east and leads to a network of galleries whose layout imitates the blue chambers below the Step Pyramid. As mentioned earlier, a 200 m-long tunnel connects the lower part of the north and south shafts ( Fig 11 , orange pipe). A series of deep niches located on the south face of the south shaft [ 97 ], the shape of which resembles that of the Deep Trench’s compartments 1 and 2, might indicate a former connection between both. This point remains to be confirmed by additional investigation.

The south shaft is connected to a rectangular shaft to the west via a tunnel-like corridor with a staircase that descends approximately 30 meters before opening up into the south shaft ( Fig 11 , inset 2 ). At the corridor level, a chamber has been cut into the bedrock parallel to the descending passage [ 3 ], towards the south. This chamber features several incompletely excavated niches on its south wall, which could extend under the south wall of the Djoser complex ( Fig 8 ). Pending further excavations, they might indicate a connection with the Deep Trench.

4.3 The twin shafts’ internal layout: two plug-systems topped with maneuvering chambers

The initial purpose of the twin shafts’ granite boxes has been largely debated [ 15 , 100 ]. The presence of two shafts with two similar granite boxes and almost identical substructures was previously explained as a separation of the body and spirit of Djoser [ 100 ]. However, the Pharaoh’s body is actually missing and was not found during modern excavations. Several authors and explorers excluded the possibility of King Djoser’s burial in the north shaft [ 15 , 103 ]. Vyse claimed [ 15 ] that the box’s internal volume was too narrow for moving a coffin without breaking the body. Firth and Quibell considered [ 103 ] the fragments found by Gunn and Lauer [ 104 ] to be of mummies of ‘late date’, possibly belonging to the Middle or New Kingdom. Finally, a thorough radiocarbon dating [ 105 ] on almost all retrieved remains [ 104 , 106 , 107 ] located near the granite box excluded the possibility that ‘ even a single one of them ’[ 105 ] could have belonged to King Djoser. Therefore, although the northern shaft had clear funerary significance much later, its original purpose during the time of Djoser may have been different.

Unfortunately, the main part of the materials that filled the twin shafts was removed during past archaeological excavations, mainly in the 1930s [ 108 ], leaving only the two granite boxes at their bottom ( Fig 11 , insets 3 and 4 ). Therefore, the shafts’ internal layout description is mainly based on the explorers’ archaeological reports and testimonies[ 109 – 111 ].

The two granite boxes are broadly similar in shape and dimensions. Both are made of four layers of granite blocks and present top orifices closed by plugs that weigh several tons ( Fig 12A ). The southern box is slightly smaller, with a plug made of several pieces, making it less versatile. The north box does not lay directly on the underlying bedrock but is perched on several piles of limestone blocks supporting the lower granite beams ( Fig 12B ), tentatively attributed to robbers by Lauer [ 3 ]. The space around the box is connected with four tunnels arranged perpendicularly on each side of the shaft (see Supplement ). This space was filled with several successive layers [ 108 ] ( Fig 12C , grey parts). The lowermost layer consisted of coarse fragments of limestone waste and alabaster, making it permeable. Meanwhile, the upper layer, going up to the box ceiling’s level, was made of limestone jointed with clay mortar [ 108 ], i . e ., less permeable [ 112 ]. This ceiling was itself covered by a 1.50 m thick layer of alabaster and limestone fragments plus overlying filling ( Fig 12C , blue part), except around the plug hole, which was encircled by a diorite lining, a particularly solid rock ( Fig 12C , green part).

Directly above the granite boxes were ‘maneuvering chambers [ 108 ]’ that enabled the plug to be lifted. The plug closing the north shaft’s box has four vertical side grooves, 15 cm in diameter, intended for lifting ropes ( Fig 12C ) and a horizontal one, possibly for sealing. Below the chamber ceiling and just above the orifice, an unsheathed wooden beam was anchored in the east and west walls ( Fig 12C ). This beam likely supported ropes to lift the plug, similar to those found in the south shaft with friction traces [ 108 ].

Interestingly, the granite stones forming the granite box ceiling were bounded by mortar ( Fig 12A ), creating an impermeable barrier with the shaft’s lower part and leaving the plug’s hole as the only possible connection between the shaft and the inside of the box. Conversely, most joints between the box’s side and bottom stones, connected with the permeable bottom layer, were free from mortar.

These details, thoroughly documented during Lauer’s excavation [ 3 , 108 ] and visible on pictures ( Fig 12A and 12B ), clearly point to technical rather than symbolic application. Taken together, the granite box’s architecture and its removable plug surrounded by limestone clay-bound blocks present the technical signature of a water outlet mechanism.

When opened, such a plug system would have allowed the north shaft to be filled with water from the Deep Trench or, in another scenario, from the Dry Moat’s eastern section. The permeable surrounding filling would have permitted water discharge control from the four side tunnels. Then, the water could only seep through the granite box’s lower joints. This design would have prevented water from rushing through the system at high speed and with pressure shocks.

Considering water coming from the Deep Trench (elevation delta: 10–20 m), the retaining walls and the many layers’ cumulated weight stacked over the granite box acted as a lateral blockage and would have prevented the box ceiling from being lifted due to the underlying water pressure.

4.4 Consistency of the internal architecture of the Djoser’s complex with a hydraulic lift mechanism

After gathering all the elements of this study, we deduce that the northern shaft’s layout is consistent with a hydraulic lift mechanism to transport materials and build the pyramid. Elements at our disposal indicate that the south and north shafts could be filled with water from the Dry Moat. A massive float inside the north shaft could then raise stones, allowing the pyramid’s construction from its center in a ‘volcano’ fashion ( Fig 13 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g013

Although a connection between the Compartment -2 and the Djoser shafts has yet to be identified, it is highly probable that sediment-free water from the Deep Trench was used in this system ( Fig 13 , disk ‘ 1 ’). This water quality would have reduced the risk of fouling and malfunction because it minimizes the presence of sand and clay that feed into the north shaft. This would prevent the deposition and progressive filling in the tunnels and connections, as well as the clogging of the joints between the bottom and side granite blocks of the box. The 200 m-long underground pipe [ 91 ] that connects the north and south shafts is then consistent with the transfer of water from the Deep Trench’s water treatment system to the north shaft, possibly via the south shaft.

Furthermore, there is a proven connection between the tunnels surrounding the north shaft and the Dry Moat through the Deslandes’ pipes [ 91 ] on the eastern side of the complex ( Figs 11 and 13 ). Pending further investigation, we hypothesize that the water inlet was located to the south ( Fig 13 , disk ‘ 1 ’), with the outlet(s) sending water toward the east through two juxtaposed pipes (disk ‘ 2 ’). Several horizontal galleries connected to these two pipes were acacia-cased [ 3 ], a technique commonly used to safeguard the walls in hydraulic works in ancient Egypt. A large stone portcullis [ 108 ] found in one of these galleries may have served as a versatile gate closed during the water filling of the north shaft.

In another scenario, the Deslandes’ juxtaposed pipes ( Fig 13 , disk ‘ 2 ’) could be considered as a water inlet for unfiltered water.

Finally, we hypothesize that a hydraulic lift, a massive float that was possibly made of wood and weighed several tons (see Supplement ), should run slowly inside the shaft to prevent instabilities and friction with the sides. The stones could have been elevated by filling and emptying cycles, allowing the lift to move up and down with stones ( Fig 13 ). These stones could have passed along the northern entrance until the central shaft. Recent discoveries have shown that this gallery was kept open until the very end of the pyramid’s construction, after which it was closed [ 1 , 91 ]. In our scenario, the stones could have been transported directly at ground level, corresponding to the pyramid’s first course, or slightly higher through a ramp penetrating in a (currently sealed) corridor some meters above the ground level. This configuration would have had the particular advantage of minimizing the elevation gain for which the hydraulic lift would be required. The stones could have been transported via the so-called ‘Saite gallery [ 114 ]’ in a final scenario. Although Firth [ 114 ] considers this gallery to postdate the III rd Dynasty, it remains possible that it was recut on the basis of an earlier gallery.

4.5 Modelling the hydraulic lift mechanism

We developed a simple numerical model of the hydraulic lift to study its water consumption and loading capacity (see Supplement ). The model was kept as simple as possible to be easily checked and only intended to give relevant orders of magnitudes.

The hydraulic lift is modelled as a float loaded with stones to build the pyramid and with a vertical extension to raise this material at the necessary level. Based on the initial altitude of the lift, Z m , which cannot be below 17m from ground level (the bottom of the shaft was filled with the box and overlying rocks, see Fig 12C ), and assuming a loading of the material on the lift at the ground level, the maximum height that can be reached in one cycle is <17m. To achieve greater heights, we hypothesize that the lift platform was blocked during the float descent, e . g ., using beams (see Fig 14 ). This modification would have allowed the platform to reach higher altitudes by adding or unfolding an extension. For the top of the pyramid, the float could be conversely used as a counterweight when descending, pulling on ropes that would haul the platform after passing over pulleys above the shaft head. A dual-use method involving hauling during shaft draining and elevating during water filling would have been the optimal management approach.

The lift platform (red line), and extension support (orange line) during the unfolding of the lower element are represented. The associated holes are to be localized in further excavation of the upper part of the shaft.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g014

The beginning of the pyramid building was most probably performed using ramps prolonging the path from the local quarry, possibly the Dry Moat [ 44 ]. To provide an upper bound of water consumption, we modelled the pyramid building using the hydraulic lift from the first layer at ground level. Our model suggests that this upper bound value is 18 Mm 3 of water required to build the whole pyramid using the float to lift stones only when the shaft is filled (see Supplement ). A few million were required to build the first 20 m and could be saved if ramps were used instead. The total amount of water needed would have been reduced by about one-third if the float had been used as a counterweight, pulling on ropes to haul stones on a platform suspended in the top part of the shaft rather than being located on a wooden frame extension attached to the float. Finally, if both lifting (when filling the shaft) and hauling (when draining the shaft) were used, the water consumption would decrease by two-thirds. If the loading was not performed at ground level but rather through a ramp and gallery above ground level, about one-quarter of the water would be saved if, for instance, using a 5 m-high ramp and 43% for a 10 m-high ramp. Further investigation above the vault and on the pyramid sides could help to identify such an eventual gallery. If, conversely, the loading was performed about 13 m below ground level in the top part of the northern gallery ( S6 Fig in S2 File ), the water consumption would typically increase by two-thirds.

On the other hand, through our research and calculations, we have determined that the Wadi Taflah catchment had the capacity to supply 4–54 Mm 3 over 20–30 years of construction, therefore not enough when assuming only pessimistic values (lower bound for rainfall and runoff coefficient, fast construction and sub-optimal use of the lift just using it when water rose), but sufficient when assuming intermediate values, and eight-times enough water to meet this demand when assuming optimistic values (upper bounds of parameters and dual lifting-hauling functioning). If further research demonstrates that the higher clay and silt content possibly present at that time shortly after the Green Sahara period probably led to increased runoff coefficients by a factor of 2–3 or even more, the resource would be increased by the same factor.

The climatological conditions on the Saqqara plateau during the III rd Dynasty are still not well understood [ 37 ]. As a first assumption, we estimate that the water supply may have been continuous even without an upper Abusir lake’s permanent existence, thanks to the flow from the wadi Abusir and, more significantly, through a probable derivation system from the nearby Wadi Taflah, assuming this large catchment had a more perennial runoff regime. Pedological investigations would be worthwhile in the plateau area and in the talweg of both wadis to look for evidence of more frequent water flow.

As a result, the hydraulic mechanism may have only been usable when sufficient water supply was available, so it may have only been used periodically. Other techniques, such as ramps and levees, were likely used to bring the stones from the quarries and adjust their positions around the lifting mechanism or when it was not in operation.

5. Discussion

A unified hydraulic system.

Based on a transdisciplinary analysis, this study provides for the first time an explanation of the function and building process of several colossal structures found at the Saqqara site. It is unique in that it aligns with the research results previously published in the scientific literature in several research areas: hydrology, geology, geotechnics, geophysics, and archaeology. In summary, the results show that the Gisr el-Mudir enclosure has the feature of a check dam intended to trap sediment and water, while the Deep Trench combines the technical requirements of a water treatment facility to remove sediments and turbidity. Together, these two structures form a unified hydraulic system that enhances water purity and regulates flow for practical uses and vital needs. Among the possible uses, our analysis shows that this sediment-free water could be used to build the pyramid by a hydraulic elevator system.

By its scale and level of engineering, this work is so significant that it seems beyond just building the Step Pyramid. The architects’ geographical choices reflect their foresight in meeting various civil needs, making the Saqqara site suitable for settling down and engaging in sedentary activities, such as agriculture, with access to water resources and shelter from extreme weather conditions. This included ensuring adequate water quality and quantity for both consumption and irrigation purposes and for transportation, navigation, or construction. Additionally, after its construction, the moat may have represented a major defensive asset, particularly if filled with water, ensuring the security of the Saqqara complex [ 115 ].

The hydraulic lift mechanism seems to be revolutionary for building stone structures and finds no parallel in our civilization. This technology showcases excellent energy management and efficient logistics, which may have provided significant construction opportunities while reducing the need for human labor. Furthermore, it raises the question of whether the other Old Kingdom pyramids, besides the Step Pyramid, were constructed using similar, potentially upgraded processes, a point deserving further investigation.

Overall, the hydraulic lift could have been a complementary construction technique to those in the literature for the Old Kingdom [ 8 , 10 ]. Indeed, it is unlikely that a single, exclusive building technique was used by the ancient architects but that a variety of methods were employed in order to adapt to the various constraints or unforeseen circumstances of a civil engineering site, such as a dry spell. Therefore, the beginning of the pyramid building was most probably performed using ramps prolonging the path from the local quarry. According to petrographic studies [ 47 ], the main limestone quarry of the Saqqara site could correspond to the Dry Moat that encircles the Djoser Complex, providing access on the four sides of the pyramid for the extracted blocks and reducing the average length of the ramps.

An advanced technical and technological level

By their technical level and sheer scale, the Saqqara engineering projects are truly impressive. When considering the technical implications of constructing a dam, water treatment facility, and lift, it is clear that such work results from a long-standing technical tradition. Beyond the technical aspects, it reflects modernity through the interactions between various professions and expertise. Even though basic knowledge in the hydraulics field existed during the early Dynastic period, this work seems to exceed the technical accomplishments mentioned in the literature of that time, like the Foggaras or smaller dams. Moreover, the designs of these technologies, such as the Gisr el-Mudir check-dam, indicate that well-considered choices were made in anticipation of their construction. They suggest that the ancient architects had some empirical and theoretical understanding of the phenomena occurring within these structures.

…questioning the historical line

The level of technological advancement displayed in Saqqara also raises questions about its place in history. When these structures were built remains the priority question to answer . Were all the observed technologies developed during the time of Djoser, or were they present even earlier? Without absolute dating of these works, it is essential to approach their attribution and construction period with caution. Because of the significant range of techniques used to build the Gisr el-Mudir, Reader estimates [ 70 ] that the enclosure may have been a long-term project developed and maintained over several subsequent reigns, a point also supported by the current authors. The water treatment facility follows a similar pattern, with the neatly cut stones being covered and filled with rougher later masonry. Finally, the Djoser Step Pyramid also presents a superposition of perfectly cut stones, sometimes arranged without joints with great precision and covered by other rougher and angular stones [ 3 ]. Some of these elements led some authors [ 6 , 100 ] to claim that Djoser’s pyramid had reused a pre-existing structure.

Some remaining questions

The Deep Trench was intentionally sealed off at some point in history, as evidenced by the pipe blockage between Compartment-0 and Compartment-1. The reasons are unknown and speculative, ranging from a desire to construct buildings (such as the Khenut, Nebet, or Kairer mastabas) above the trench to a technical malfunction or shutdown due to a water shortage. This sealing might also have been done for other cultural or religious purposes.

The current topography of the land around the Djoser complex, although uncertain given the natural or anthropogenic changes that have occurred over the last five millennia, does not support the existence of a trench to the east side. Therefore, our observations join those of Welc et al. [ 61 ] and some of the first explorers [ 63 ], reasonably attributing only three sections to the Dry Moat.

6 Materials and methods

• High-resolution commercial satellite images (Airbus PLEIADES, 50 cm resolution) and digital elevation models (DEM) were computed and analyzed to identify Abusir wadi’s palaeohydrological network impact on Djoser’s construction project. The processing sequence to generate DEM was mainly achieved using the Micmac software [ 116 ] developed by the French National Geographic Institute (IGN) and the open-source cross-platform geographic information system QGIS 3 . 24 . 3 . Tisler .
• Geospatial data analysis was performed using the open-source WebGL-based point cloud renderer Potree 1.8.1 and QGIS 3 . 24 . 3 . Tisler .
• The 2D CAD profiles of the Step Pyramid Complex presented throughout this article were produced using Solidworks 2020 SP5 (Dassault Systems) , Sketchup Pro 2021 (Trimble) , Blender (Blender Foundation) , and Unreal Engine 5 (Epic Games) , mainly based on dimensions collected by successive archaeological missions during the last two centuries reported in the literature.
• The Wadi Taflah watershed and the catchment area west of Gisr el-Mudir have been identified and characterized using QGIS 3 . 24 . 3 . This was done with the help of the Geomeletitiki Basin Analysis Toolbox plugin, developed by Lymperis Efstathios for Geomeletitiki Consulting Engineers S . A . based in Greece.
• The modeling of the hydraulic lift mechanism was performed using the open-source programming software RStudio 2022 . 07 . 2 .

7. Concluding remarks and perspectives

This article discloses several discoveries related to the construction of the Djoser complex, never reported before:

• The authors presented evidence suggesting that the Saqqara site and the Step Pyramid complex have been built downstream of a watershed. This watershed, located west of the Gisr el-Mudir enclosure, drains a total area of about 15 km 2 . It is probable that this basin was connected to a larger one with an estimated area of approximately 400 km 2 . This larger basin once formed the Bahr Bela Ma River , also known as Wadi Taflah , a Nile tributary.
• Thorough technical analysis demonstrates that the Gisr el-Mudir enclosure seems to be a massive sediment trap (360 m x 620 m, with a wall thickness of ~15 m, 2 km long) featuring an open check dam. Given its advanced geotechnical design, we estimate that such work results from a technical tradition that largely predates this dam construction. To gain an accurate understanding of the dam’s operating period, the current authors consider it a top priority to conduct geological sampling and analysis both inside and outside the sediment trap. This process would also provide valuable information about the chronological construction sequence of the main structures found on the Saqqara plateau.
• The hydrological and topographical analysis of the dam’s downstream area reveals the potential presence of a dried-up, likely ephemeral lake, which we call Upper Abusir Lake, located west of the Djoser complex. The findings suggest a possible link between this lake and the Unas hydrological corridor, as well as with the ‘Dry Moat’ surrounding the Djoser complex.
• The ‘Dry Moat’ surrounding the Djoser complex is likely to have been filled with water from the Upper Abusir Lake, making it suitable for navigation and material transportation. Our first topographical analysis attributes only three sections to this moat (West, North, and South).
• The Dry Moat’s inner south section is located within the Unas hydrological corridor. The linear rock-cut structure built inside this area, called ‘Deep Trench,’ consisting of successive compartments connected by a rock conduit, combines the technical requirements of a water treatment system: a settling basin, a retention basin, and a purification system.
• Taken as a whole, the Gisr el-Mudir and the Deep Trench form a unified hydraulic system that enhances water purity and regulates flow for practical uses and vital needs.
• We have uncovered a possible explanation for how the pyramids were built involving hydraulic force. The internal architecture of the Step Pyramid is consistent with a hydraulic elevation device never reported before. The current authors hypothesize that the ancient architects could have raised the stones from inside the pyramid, in a volcano fashion. The granite stone boxes at the bottom of the north and south shafts above the Step Pyramid, previously considered as two Djoser’s graves, have the technical signature of an inlet/outlet system for water flow ( Fig 15 ). A simple modeling of the mechanical system was developed to study its water consumption and loading capacity. Considering the estimated water resources of the Wadi Taflah catchment area during the Old Kingdom, the results indicate orders of magnitude consistent with the construction needs for the Step Pyramid.

Graphical conclusion

North Saqqara map showing the relation between the Abusir water course and the Step Pyramid construction process (Inset). The arrows figuring the flow directions are approximate and given for illustrative purposes based on the Franco-Egyptian SFS/IGN survey [ 52 ]. Satellite image: Airbus Pléiades, 2021-07-02, reprinted from Airbus D&S SAS library under a CC BY license, with permission from Michael Chemouny, original copyright 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g015

Supporting information

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.s001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.s002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.s003

How to write and structure a journal article

Sharing your research data  can be hugely  beneficial to your career , as well as to the scholarly community and wider society. But before you do so, there are some important ethical considerations to remember.

What are the rules and guidance you should follow, when you begin to think about how to write and structure a journal article? Ruth First Prize winner Steven Rogers, PhD said the first thing is to be passionate about what you write.

Steven Nabieu Rogers, Ruth First Prize winner.

Let’s go through some of the best advice that will help you pinpoint the features of a journal article, and how to structure it into a compelling research paper.

Planning for your article

When planning to write your article, make sure it has a central message that you want to get across. This could be a novel aspect of methodology that you have in your PhD study, a new theory, or an interesting modification you have made to theory or a novel set of findings.

2018 NARST Award winner Marissa Rollnick advised that you should decide what this central focus is, then create a paper outline bearing in mind the need to:

Isolate a manageable size

Create a coherent story/argument

Make the argument self-standing

Target the journal readership

Change the writing conventions from that used in your thesis

Get familiar with the journal you want to submit to

It is a good idea to choose your target journal before you start to write your paper. Then you can tailor your writing to the journal’s requirements and readership, to increase your chances of acceptance.

When selecting your journal think about audience, purposes, what to write about and why. Decide the kind of article to write. Is it a report, position paper, critique or review? What makes your argument or research interesting? How might the paper add value to the field?

If you need more guidance on how to choose a journal,  here is our guide to narrow your focus.

Once you’ve chosen your target journal, take the time to read a selection of articles already published – particularly focus on those that are relevant to your own research.

This can help you get an understanding of what the editors may be looking for, then you can guide your writing efforts.

The  Think. Check. Submit.  initiative provides tools to help you evaluate whether the journal you’re planning to send your work to is trustworthy.

The journal’s  aims and scope  is also an important resource to refer back to as you write your paper – use it to make sure your article aligns with what the journal is trying to accomplish.

Keep your message focused

The next thing you need to consider when writing your article is your target audience. Are you writing for a more general audience or is your audience experts in the same field as you? The journal you have chosen will give you more information on the type of audience that will read your work.

When you know your audience, focus on your main message to keep the attention of your readers. A lack of focus is a common problem and can get in the way of effective communication.

Stick to the point. The strongest journal articles usually have one point to make. They make that point powerfully, back it up with evidence, and position it within the field.

How to format and structure a journal article

The format and structure of a journal article is just as important as the content itself, it helps to clearly guide the reader through.

How do I format a journal article?

Individual journals will have their own specific formatting requirements, which you can find in the  instructions for authors.

You can save time on formatting by downloading a template from our  library of templates  to apply to your article text. These templates are accepted by many of our journals. Also, a large number of our journals now offer  format-free submission,  which allows you to submit your paper without formatting your manuscript to meet that journal’s specific requirements.

General structure for writing an academic journal article

The title of your article is one of the first indicators readers will get of your research and concepts. It should be concise, accurate, and informative. You should include your most relevant keywords in your title, but avoid including abbreviations and formulae.

Keywords are an essential part of producing a journal article. When writing a journal article you must select keywords that you would like your article to rank for.

Keywords help potential readers to discover your article when conducting research using search engines.

The purpose of your abstract is to express the key points of your research, clearly and concisely. An abstract must always be well considered, as it is the primary element of your work that readers will come across.

An abstract should be a short paragraph (around 300 words) that summarizes the findings of your journal article. Ordinarily an abstract will be comprised of:

What your research is about

What methods have been used

What your main findings are

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements can appear to be a small aspect of your journal article, however it is still important. This is where you acknowledge the individuals who do not qualify for co-authorship, but contributed to your article intellectually, financially, or in some other manner.

When you acknowledge someone in your academic texts, it gives you more integrity as a writer as it shows that you are not claiming other academic’s ideas as your own intellectual property. It can also aid your readers in their own research journeys.

Introduction

An introduction is a pivotal part of the article writing process. An introduction not only introduces your topic and your stance on the topic, but it also (situates/contextualizes) your argument in the broader academic field.

The main body is where your main arguments and your evidence are located. Each paragraph will encapsulate a different notion and there will be clear linking between each paragraph.

Your conclusion should be an interpretation of your results, where you summarize all of the concepts that you introduced in the main body of the text in order of most to least important. No new concepts are to be introduced in this section.

References and citations

References and citations should be well balanced, current and relevant. Although every field is different, you should aim to cite references that are not more than 10 years old if possible. The studies you cite should be strongly related to your research question.

Clarity is key

Make your writing accessible by using clear language. Writing that is easy to read, is easier to understand too.

You may want to write for a global audience – to have your research reach the widest readership. Make sure you write in a way that will be understood by any reader regardless of their field or whether English is their first language.

Write your journal article with confidence, to give your reader certainty in your research. Make sure that you’ve described your methodology and approach; whilst it may seem obvious to you, it may not to your reader. And don’t forget to explain acronyms when they first appear.

Engage your audience. Go back to thinking about your audience; are they experts in your field who will easily follow technical language, or are they a lay audience who need the ideas presented in a simpler way?

Be aware of other literature in your field, and reference it

Make sure to tell your reader how your article relates to key work that’s already published. This doesn’t mean you have to review every piece of previous relevant literature, but show how you are building on previous work to avoid accidental plagiarism.

When you reference something, fully understand its relevance to your research so you can make it clear for your reader. Keep in mind that recent references highlight awareness of all the current developments in the literature that you are building on. This doesn’t mean you can’t include older references, just make sure it is clear why you’ve chosen to.

How old can my references be?

Your literature review should take into consideration the current state of the literature.

There is no specific timeline to consider. But note that your subject area may be a factor. Your colleagues may also be able to guide your decision.

Researcher’s view

Grasian Mkodzongi, Ruth First Prize Winner

Top tips to get you started

Communicate your unique point of view to stand out. You may be building on a concept already in existence, but you still need to have something new to say. Make sure you say it convincingly, and fully understand and reference what has gone before.

Editor’s view

Professor Len Barton, Founding Editor of Disability and Society

Be original

Now you know the features of a journal article and how to construct it. This video is an extra resource to use with this guide to help you know what to think about before you write your journal article.

Expert help for your manuscript

Taylor & Francis Editing Services  offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.

Related resources

How to write your title and abstract

Journal manuscript layout guide

Improve the quality of English of your article

How to edit your paper

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 01 August 2024

Achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions critical to limit climate tipping risks

• Tessa Möller   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7757-1985 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5   na1 ,
• Annika Ernest Högner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4178-9664 3 , 4 , 5   na1 ,
• Carl-Friedrich Schleussner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8471-848X 1 , 2 , 6 ,
• Samuel Bien   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7374-265X 3 , 4 , 5 ,
• Niklas H. Kitzmann   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4234-6336 3 , 4 ,
• Robin D. Lamboll   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8410-037X 7 ,
• Joeri Rogelj   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2056-9061 1 , 7 , 8 ,
• Jonathan F. Donges 3 , 9 , 10 ,
• Johan Rockström   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8988-2983 3 , 5 , 9 &
• Nico Wunderling   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3566-323X 3 , 10 , 11  

Nature Communications volume  15 , Article number:  6192 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

18k Accesses

880 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate and Earth system modelling
• Climate change
• Phase transitions and critical phenomena

Under current emission trajectories, temporarily overshooting the Paris global warming limit of 1.5 °C is a distinct possibility. Permanently exceeding this limit would substantially increase the probability of triggering climate tipping elements. Here, we investigate the tipping risks associated with several policy-relevant future emission scenarios, using a stylised Earth system model of four interconnected climate tipping elements. We show that following current policies this century would commit to a 45% tipping risk by 2300 (median, 10–90% range: 23–71%), even if temperatures are brought back to below 1.5 °C. We find that tipping risk by 2300 increases with every additional 0.1 °C of overshoot above 1.5 °C and strongly accelerates for peak warming above 2.0 °C. Achieving and maintaining at least net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2100 is paramount to minimise tipping risk in the long term. Our results underscore that stringent emission reductions in the current decade are critical for planetary stability.

Similar content being viewed by others

A framework for national scenarios with varying emission reductions

Ratcheting of climate pledges needed to limit peak global warming

Near-term transition and longer-term physical climate risks of greenhouse gas emissions pathways

Introduction.

Climate tipping elements are complex subsystems of the Earth system that can display non-linear, often abrupt transitions in response to anthropogenic global warming 1 , 2 . This means that a small increase in global mean temperature (GMT) can trigger a large qualitative change in these subsystems. Decreasing the forcing back to its pre-industrial value will often not reverse this change, as the transitions are driven by self-amplifying feedback mechanisms that lead to hysteresis behaviour 3 , 4 .

Core tipping elements with planetary-scale impacts on the Earth system include cryosphere subsystems such as the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), large-scale oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns such as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), and biosphere subsystems like the Amazon Rainforest (AMAZ), the four of which we will focus on in this study. Further tipping elements include Boreal Permafrost, extra-polar mountain glaciers, and tropical coral reefs, among others 2 . Many of these tipping elements are connected through interaction processes that can stabilise or exacerbate their individual dynamics 5 , 6 , potentially enabling tipping cascades 7 . This depends on the strength of the interactions and sensitivity to increases in GMT. Consequences of climate tipping would be severe and potentially include a global sea level rise of several metres, ecosystem collapse, widespread biodiversity loss, and substantial shifts in global heat redistribution and precipitation patterns 8 . Paleorecords, as well as observational and model-based studies, provide evidence of the multistability and hysteresis behaviour of single tipping elements 1 , 2 . In spite of this, most state-of-the-art high-dimensional earth system models (ESMs) do not yet comprehensively simulate the non-linear behaviour, feedback, and interactions between some of the tipping elements due to computational limitations and a lack of processes important for resolving tipping 9 , 10 , 11 . Most state-of-the-art ESMs do not include coupled dynamic ice sheets, which renders them unable to represent the tipping point dynamics of cryosphere tipping elements as well as their links and interactions with other tipping elements 12 . The resulting lack of freshwater forcing and sea level rise can have significant repercussions for the behaviour of ocean circulations in these models. For these reasons, these models may not be suited to fully resolve tipping dynamics and interactions 9 , 10 , 11 .

A simplified but established complementary approach that we also utilise in this study is, therefore, to model tipping with fold-bifurcation models 6 , 7 , 13 , 14 (see Fig.  1 ). These conceptual models display hysteresis properties and tipping when a critical threshold is passed. The parameters of such conceptual models are based on process-understanding of the governing feedbacks of the tipping elements, such as Stommel’s salt-advection feedback for the AMOC or the melt-elevation feedback for the GIS 3 , 8 , 10 . They can be found to produce stability landscapes for single tipping elements similar to more complex domain-specific models (see Supplementary Fig.  1 ).

a Schematic fold-bifurcation diagram of a model tipping element with global mean temperature (GMT) as a forcing parameter and two stable states separated by the unstable manifold. The red arrows indicate the feedback direction of the entire system if a forcing occurs. This means, that if the system is pushed across the unstable manifold, it will move towards the opposite stable equilibrium state. b Illustrative time-evolution of one sample model run of each tipping element: Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS), West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), Amazon Rainforest (AMAZ), including the threshold for state evaluation (dashed grey line).

It has been argued that the tipping behaviour of the GIS is linked to an ice sheet volume threshold 15 , 16 . However, it has also been shown that this volume threshold can be linked to a GMT threshold 17 . Similarly, the tipping behaviour of the AMOC may be primarily linked to the rate of freshwater input into the North Atlantic and AMAZ tipping behaviour has been linked to the lack of sufficient moisture supply 18 . For consistency, we have here linked the bifurcation behaviour of the tipping elements back to a GMT threshold based on multiple lines of evidence, including Earth system modelling and paleoclimate data 2 .

The urgency to understand and minimise climate tipping risks has been recognised in international climate policy for the first time at the 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27) in Egypt 19 . While uncertainties are still considerable, current best estimates find several tipping elements at risk at 1.5 °C above pre-industrial GMT levels 2 and early warning signals of an approaching transition have been observed for a number of tipping elements 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 . This provides strong scientific support for the Paris Agreement’s Article 2.1 long-term temperature goal (LTTG) aiming to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels 24 , which evidence increasingly shows is a limit, not an aspirational goal 2 , 25 . Global warming has reached 1.2 °C 26 , and current climate policy scenarios are estimated to result in 2.6 °C warming above pre-industrial levels 27 by the end of this century (with a range of 1.7–3.0 °C). Even if GMT were to be stabilised at or below 1.5 °C in the long term, a temporary overshoot above 1.5 °C is a distinct possibility and was presented prominently as the first of the Ten New Insights in Climate Science 2023/24 28 , underlining the urgency that potential impacts and associated risks of such an overshoot, including the triggering of potential tipping processes, need to be assessed 29 .

Previous studies have schematically analysed how individual and interacting tipping elements 7 respond to idealised overshoot scenarios 13 , 30 , assessing the impacts of overshoot duration, peak temperature, and long-term stabilisation temperature on tipping risks. Uncertainties in critical temperatures and critical transition times, as well as—where applicable—interactions between tipping elements were incorporated. However, to systematically assess tipping risks (see Fig.  1 ) under a given climate policy and emission pathway, the uncertainty of the climate system in response to increasing atmospheric CO 2 levels (climate sensitivity and carbon-cycle feedbacks) must be taken into account 25 , 31 . Here, we use the PROVIDEv1.2 scenario overshoot pathways 32 —an extended version of the illustrative pathways identified in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report 33 . The considered emission pathways span a range of different possible policies, including pathways that follow current policies and pledges, as well as pathways consistent with the climate objectives of the Paris Agreement. We study the full range of GMT outcomes for each emission pathway using multiple calibrations of the stylised Earth system model PyCascades of four interacting tipping elements 34 (GIS, WAIS, AMOC, and AMAZ), to assess tipping risks in the medium term (until 2300) and long term (in equilibrium, here after 50,000 years).

Tipping risks under overshoots

The PROVIDEv1.2 emission pathways 32 cover the time from 1850 to 2300, harmonised to 2015 emission levels. GMT trajectories were derived using FaIR v.1.6.2 35 and extended linearly beyond 2300 to analyse long-term equilibrium behaviour. The mitigation objective, as set out in Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement, aims to support the achievement of the LTTG by establishing a global requirement to achieve net zero greenhouse gas (NZGHG) emissions (aggregated using Global Warming Potential over a 100-year horizon, or GWP100) in the second half of the 21st century 36 . This would lead to a declining GMT 37 , 38 , 39 . Scenarios that achieve net zero or negative emissions by 2100 and maintain them thereafter are classified as NZGHG emission scenarios. Table  1 contains the names and properties of all analysed scenarios. The criteria for classification are described in the “Methods” section in more detail.

A comprehensive risk assessment requires consideration of the combined risks 25 of uncertainties on future emission trajectories, uncertainties in the Earth system response to these emissions including climate sensitivity and carbon-cycle feedbacks, as well as uncertainties regarding the tipping dynamics (see Fig.  2 ). Therefore, all considered scenarios take the 10–90% emission-temperature uncertainty into account, which arises from the uncertainties in the carbon cycle and climate response (see Supplementary Fig.  2 ). The tipping-related uncertainties are propagated via a Monte Carlo ensemble approach (see the “Methods” section).

a All-sector total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for nine investigated scenarios (GHG emissions as considered by the Kyoto Protocol, aggregated with Global Warming Potentials over a period of 100 years, GtCO2eq/year). b Resulting temperature outcomes, including climate response uncertainty, given in °C relative to preindustrial (1850–1900 average). Shaded areas correspond to the 10–90th temperature percentiles, the median is given by the line. Scenario Ref-1p5 has been added for comparison and is only defined in temperature space. c Network of the four investigated tipping elements with interactions: Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS), West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), Amazon Rainforest (AMAZ). Every arrow symbolises a physical interaction mechanism between two tipping elements, categorised as destabilising (+), stabilising (−), or uncertain (±). d Critical temperature ranges under sustained warming for at least the respective tipping timescale, given in °C relative to preindustrial. The ranges of AMOC and AMAZ extend beyond the plot up to 8.0 and 6.0 °C, respectively. Intensifying grey indicates an increasing risk that a threshold will be exceeded, with lines marking the centre estimates. e Timescales of the tipping elements, with centre estimate (dot) and estimated range, from committing the tipping until it is completed. For critical temperature ranges, timescales of tipping, and interactions between tipping elements, also see Supplementary Tables  1 and 2 .

We find that tipping risks until 2300 are substantial for several of the assessed scenarios (see Fig.  3a, b ). In the long term, an overall increase in tipping risk is observed. The five pathways that do not return warming to below 1.5 °C by 2100 (CurPol-OS-1.5C, Mod-Act-OS-1.5C, Mod-Act-OS-1.0C, SSP5-3.4-OS, GS-NZGHG) display the highest risks in the medium term (Fig.  2a ), reaching 23–71% tipping risk for the scenario following current (2020) policies (median 45%; CurPol-OS-1.5C). The two pathways with less than 0.1 °C median overshoot above 1.5 °C display the lowest tipping risks in the medium term with 0–7% tipping risk (median < 1%; SP-NZGHG, SSP1-1.9). If warming is returned to below 1.5 °C by 2100 after a high overshoot (median peak temperature exceeds 1.5 °C by more than 0.1 °C), tipping risks remain at or below 10% (median 2%; Neg-OS-0C and Neg-NZGHG). Failing to return warming below 1.5 °C by 2100, despite reaching NZGHG in this time, results in tipping risks of 0–24% (median 4%; GS-NZGHG). This confirms that the risks of overshoot can be minimised if warming is swiftly reversed. However, this would require rapid employment of appropriate mitigation measures.

a In the medium-term (until 2300) and b in the long-term (50,000 years), with the risk derived from the median temperature trajectory as centre dots and the range spanning the 10-90th temperature percentiles. IPCC likelihood ranges are given on the right 72 . c Peak temperature of the overshoot, d long-term stabilisation temperature relative to pre-industrial, with 1.5 °C as a dashed line, and e duration of the overshoot above 1.5 °C until 2300.

In the long term, stabilisation temperature is one of the decisive variables for tipping risks (Fig.  2d ). We find that a long-term temperature stabilisation at 1.5 °C even without prior overshoot (Ref1p5) results in more than 50% tipping risk.

Only the three scenarios that return median warming to below 1.5 °C by 2100 and maintain NZGHG thereafter (SP-NZGHG, Neg-NZGHG, Neg-OS-0C) retain long-term median risks in the very unlikely range, and upper risks below 12%.

Fast tipping elements determine medium-term tipping risks

In Fig.  4 , we show the medium- and long-term tipping risks for each of the four considered tipping elements. In the medium term the two faster tipping elements, AMOC (tipping time: 15–300 years) and AMAZ (tipping time: 50–200 years) display the highest risks while tipping remains below 11% for the two slow-onset tipping elements, GIS (tipping time: 1000–15,000 years) and WAIS (tipping time: 500–13,000 years). In the long term, risks are highest for AMOC and WAIS. Given the threshold ranges of both ice sheets, we would expect comparable outcomes for the GIS and WAIS; however, the tipping risk for GIS is significantly lower than for WAIS: Given its lower tipping timescale, the WAIS is anticipated to tip faster than the GIS for similar temperature overshoots. Additionally, a tipping AMOC would lead to strong cooling over the GIS and potentially stabilise it (see Fig.  2c ). Such strong stabilising effects are improbable to exist for the WAIS according to the newest literature 40 .

a Medium-term tipping risk (until 2300). b Long-term tipping risk (model equilibrium). The x -axis accounts for the uncertainties in climate response, with a 90% probability of the temperature outcome exceeding the lower bound (10th percentile), and a 10% probability of the temperature outcome exceeding the upper bound (90th percentile). The y -axis denotes the tipping risk. IPCC likelihood ranges are given on the right 72 .

As we see a comparatively little increase in tipping risk from the medium term to long term for AMAZ, we conclude that AMAZ tipping is mainly caused by the overshoot itself.

The median tipping risk for the WAIS under SSP1-1.9 increases from <1% (medium-term) to 13% (long-term), and for the upper percentile from <1% to 52%, although the temperature converges below 1.5 °C. This can be explained by the fact that the tipping threshold ranges for the ice sheets begin well below 1.5 °C 2 (see Fig.  2d ).

Ref-1p5 illustrates the tipping risks if peak temperature were limited to 1.5 °C and kept constant thereafter, excluding a temporary overshoot as the cause for tipping. Tipping risks in the medium term under Ref-1p5 are below 10% for all elements, however they significantly increase in the long term.

Tipping risk by 2300 from overshooting 1.5 °C

Due to different underlying mitigation assumptions, the scenarios included in this study cross the 1.5 °C limit at different times and follow different pathways to their peak and stabilisation temperatures (see Fig.  2b ). To consider the impact of these pathways in more detail, we treat the temperature trajectories for each scenario as individual data points, focusing the analysis on the temperature space. We assess the tipping risk per peak temperature for all trajectories that temporarily exceed 1.5 °C (Fig.  5a ).

a Increase in tipping risk (%) until 2300 per overshoot peak temperature, for all trajectories with overshoot above 1.5 °C. Each point represents one temperature percentile (10–90%) of a scenario and is coloured by the corresponding scenario information. b Acceleration in tipping risk for overshoot peak temperature. Each point represents the slope of a linear fit through a window of 25 adjacent data points of peak temperature vs. tipping risk (see panel a ), thereby denoting the increase in tipping risk for this window, against the mean peak temperature within this window. The sliding window analysis is shown for all four tipping elements separately: Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS), West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), Amazon Rainforest (AMAZ), as well as for the combined risk of the four considered tipping elements (panel b , yellow points). Shaded areas represent the 95% confidence interval.

We find that tipping risk increases with peak warming above 1.5 °C (Fig.  5a ). To further investigate this increase in tipping risk, we apply a sliding window analysis across all overshoot trajectories (Fig.  5b ). Overall, the increase in tipping risk per additional 0.1 °C mean overshoot peak temperature per sliding window lies within a range of around 1.0–1.5% (Fig.  5b ) for mean peak temperatures below 2.0 °C, then notably accelerates until a mean peak temperature of about 2.5 °C, above which our analysis suggests a stabilisation of the increase in tipping risk per 0.1 °C above 3%.

The contributions of the individual tipping elements to overall tipping risk increase are resolved in Fig.  5b . We find that while AMOC is the main driver of tipping risk increase at lower mean peak temperatures, the AMAZ is the main driver of the non-linear acceleration in tipping risk above 2.0 °C mean peak temperature. This can be explained by the onset of the AMAZ tipping threshold range at 2.0 °C (see Supplementary Table  1 ). However, the non-linear acceleration at ~2.0 °C mean peak temperature is also observed for the other tipping elements to smaller degrees (see also Supplementary Fig.  6b ). As an AMAZ tipping does not drive interactions in our model (compare Fig.  2c ), network effects enhancing this behaviour are driven by ice sheet or AMOC tipping (see Supplementary Fig.  6 for the impact of interactions).

The same analysis was conducted with an alternative metric to quantify overshoot, defined by the warming during the overshoot averaged over the overshoot duration (see Supplementary Figs.  7 – 10 ). The results are similar to the use of peak temperature.

Maintaining net zero greenhouse gas emissions to limit long-term tipping risks

We evaluate the impact of the long-term adherence to achieving and maintaining at least NZGHG emissions on tipping risk for a wide range of climate outcomes per emission pathway (Fig.  6 ). We find that pathways that achieve at least NZGHG lead to substantially lower tipping probabilities compared to pathways that do not achieve NZGHG (No-NZGHG), or only do so for some time (No-long-term NZGHG, see Fig.  6 ). In addition, peak temperature appears to be indicative of tipping risk in the medium term. In the long term, stabilisation temperature, determined by long-term emission behaviour, becomes more decisive (Fig.  3d ).

Each point represents one temperature percentile (10–90%) of a scenario and is coloured by the peak temperature increase. Scenarios were grouped by their adherence to NZGHG (‘NZGHG’: reach NZGHG emissions by 2100 and maintain NZGHG emissions in the long term; ‘No-long-term-NZGHG’: reach NZGHG emissions by 2100, but do not maintain NZGHG emissions in the long term; ‘No-NZGHG’: do not reach NZGHG emissions by 2100) and assessed for both investigated timeframes. Point size is fixed. White boxes indicate the medium-term, grey boxes the long-term, with the upper and lower box edges of the boxplots corresponding to the interquartile ranges of the 25th and 75th percentiles of points per class and the line denoting the median.

All three classes of pathways display higher tipping risk ranges in the long term than in the medium term. For pathways that only achieve and maintain NZGHG temporarily, the tipping risk range in the medium term is close to the range of the pathways that maintain NZGHG. In the long-term, however, these No-long-term-NZGHG scenarios reach significantly higher tipping risks. For NZGHG temperature trajectories, the median tipping risk remains below 2%, and only for a small number of high-warming trajectories, the risk exceeds 6%.

Our results demonstrate that in order to minimise tipping risks in the long term, it is crucial to achieve at least NZGHG by 2100 as set out in Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement and maintain it in the long term.

Our study reveals that following current climate policies until 2100 may lead to high tipping risks even if long-term temperatures return to 1.5 °C by 2300. Under such an emission pathway, we report a tipping probability of 45% (median estimate, 10–90% range: 23–71%) until 2300 and of 76% (median estimate, 10–90% range: 39–98%) in the long term. Scenarios following pledged NDCs under the UNFCCC in 2020 until 2100 fail to adhere to the Paris Agreement LTTG, and even when subsequently designed such that temperatures return to 1.5 °C (median) after overshoot, we find that they are insufficient to avoid tipping risks (median estimate: 30%, 10–90% range: 10–56% until 2300). We find that tipping risk increases with every 0.1 °C of overshoot peak temperature. Further, we find a non-linear acceleration in tipping risk for peak overshoot temperatures above 2.0 °C resulting in more than 3% tipping risk increase per additional 0.1 °C peak temperature for overshoot temperatures exceeding 2.5 °C peak warming. This underscores the importance of the Paris Agreement climate objective 24 to hold warming to ‘well below 2 °C’ even in case of a temporary overshoot above 1.5 °C.

Our results show that only achieving and maintaining net zero greenhouse gas emissions, associated with a long-term decline in global temperatures, effectively limits tipping risks over the coming centuries and beyond in line with earlier studies 2 , 8 , 13 . Our findings imply that stabilisation of global temperatures at or around 1.5 °C is insufficient to limit tipping risk in the long term. In order to effectively minimise this risk, our study suggests that temperature needs to return to below 1 °C above pre-industrial level.

There is considerable uncertainty in the response of the climate system to the decline of emissions, and it is not clear how reversible GMT is after emissions cease 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 . Regional climate responses show high variability indicating that regional climatic changes might only be partially reversible 45 , 46 . Further, we cannot exclude that reinforcing feedbacks, which will ultimately lead to tipping, have already been triggered in the slow-onset cryospheric tipping elements 4 , 22 . The transient nature of an overshoot might offer a window of opportunity to counteract anthropogenic emissions with rapid interventions and stabilise the ice sheets before tipping is locked-in 22 , 47 . Possibilities of recovery and ways to recognise when a transition becomes locked-in and thereby truly irreversible are urgent topics for future research.

While we assess the probabilities of at least one element tipping on the basis of mitigation behaviour until 2300, the implications of overshooting 1.5 °C will unfold over millennia 15 . For example, Global Mean Sea Level will continue to rise for up to 10,000 years or more after emissions have reached NZGHG, due to the slow response of the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica 15 . The Global Mean Sea Level Rise (GMSLR) by 2300, committed from historic and currently pledged emissions until 2030, already amounts to 0.8–1.4 m 48 . Exceeding 1.5 °C may lead to a commitment of at least 2–3 m GMSLR on a timescale of 2000 years, and 6–7 m commitment on a 10,000-year timescale 15 .

The GMT changes used to assess the tipping risk in this study are derived from emission scenarios with FaIR 35 , a simple climate model that is calibrated extensively to match observations and more complex model outputs 49 . Our risk assessment, however, neglects direct temperature feedbacks from destabilising tipping elements, e.g. from disintegrating GIS or WAIS 50 and does not include carbon releases from the AMAZ or permafrost thaw 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 . Some of these effects are implicitly accounted for via the uncertainty in the climate response included in this study.

Our stylised Earth system model is designed for risk assessment under large uncertainties on climate tipping elements. As a simplification of the complex climate system, it does not allow us to make exact predictions about the characteristics of tipping 7 , 13 , 34 . We do not account for potential multistability, complex path-dependency, or spatial pattern formation 47 , 55 , 56 . Furthermore, processes that have the potential to further amplify risks, such as rate-induced tipping as recently suggested for the AMOC 57 , are not considered in our study. Anthropogenic influences other than GMT increase, such as changes in land-use 58 , are not part of the modelled dynamics, however they enter implicitly via the assumptions of some of the scenarios used in this study (for instance SSP1 and SSP5 58 , 59 ). These limitations render our results conservative, suggesting that tipping probabilities may well be even higher than we have found. This further underscores the need for a preventive approach to minimise overshoot. The scientific community is working towards more comprehensive and physically based models for the analysis of tipping dynamics, addressing and resolving some of these concerns e.g. under the Tipping Point Modelling Intercomparison Project (TIPMIP) 60 . While this work is under development, we here provide initial results and insights into which scenarios could be interesting to analyse in comprehensive models.

The available quantifications of interactions are taken from an expert elicitation 5 and present a major uncertainty. It would be desirable to constrain this uncertainty better with further analyses, to include more tipping elements, as well as process-based dynamics. However, by including the uncertainties associated with climate sensitivity, carbon-cycle feedbacks, and emissions, and by propagating the uncertainties associated with the tipping elements, our assessment allows for robust results on the tipping risks induced by current mitigation levels and relevant policy scenarios.

All scenarios in this study that fulfil and maintain NZGHG by 2100 rely on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to varying extents to complement emission reductions to achieve peak warming and allow for a decline in warming thereafter 61 , 62 . Large-scale deployment of CDR comes with its own concerns 63 , depending on the portfolio of CDR technologies deployed. Relying on mitigation technologies that have not yet been deployed at scale is risky 64 . Extensive reliance on land-based CDR options raises sustainability concerns, including competition for land used for food production 65 and impacts on terrestrial and marine biodiversity 66 . Some CDR techniques, such as afforestation will be threatened by climate change itself 67 . Beyond these concerns, deploying CDR at scale will lead to substantial economic costs 65 and unavoidably involve debates on fairness and equity 68 .

The lowest need for CDR in our scenario selection is assumed in the SP-NZGHG scenario 69 , which contains very stringent reductions in global GHG emissions already by 2030, through a combination of strong policy interventions across multiple dimensions together with ambitious lifestyle changes. Under this scenario, substantial progress along the social and developmental dimensions would be undertaken without further exacerbating environmental degradation. However, substantial gaps in the fulfilment of all dimensions of this scenario remain due to inertia in existing systems and lack of global action 69 .

In conclusion, our study shows that current policies and NDCs are not sufficient to minimise tipping risks, even if strong emission reductions after 2100 were to return temperatures to or below 1.5 °C in the long term. Every 0.1 °C of additional overshoot above 1.5 °C increases tipping risk, and greenhouse gas emissions need to reach net zero as early as possible and maintain it to minimise the risk of climate tipping points.

Our results emphasise the fundamental relevance of the Paris Agreement climate objectives 24 , 62 for planetary stability. To effectively limit tipping risks, holding warming well below 2 °C at all times is essential even in case of a temporary overshoot above 1.5 °C. Beyond peak warming, achieving and maintaining net zero greenhouse gas emissions is paramount to limiting long-term tipping risks by bringing temperatures back down below 1.5 °C and beyond. Our results also illustrate that a global mean temperature increase of 1.5 °C is not “safe” in terms of planetary stability but must be seen as an upper limit. Returning to levels substantially lower, in the long run, might be desirable to limit tipping risks as well as other time-lagged climate impacts such as sea-level rise 15 , 48 . Domestic policies to reduce emissions need to be adopted and implemented, not only pledged 27 , and a more significant and urgent effort is needed to mitigate the risks associated with tipping elements.

Tipping risk and interacting tipping elements

In this study, we classify an element to be tipped once it has transgressed from an untipped to a tipped state at x  > 0 (see Fig.  1 ). Further, we define as tipping risk the probability that at least one of the four interacting tipping elements (AMOC, AMAZ, GIS, WAIS) has crossed its tipping point. We obtain this probability through a large-scale Monte Carlo ensemble approach that allows us to account for all parameter uncertainties arising from the tipping thresholds, timescales, interaction strengths, and directions by running the model with a large number (here 11,000) of different parameter combinations (see Fig.  2 for parameter ranges) for every temperature trajectory (evaluating 9 trajectories per emission scenario to account for uncertainties in climate sensitivity) and analysing every ensemble run according to the above-described criteria to assess the states of the four tipping elements at the time of evaluation. The tipping risk is then the percentage of ensemble runs in which at least one tipping element is classified as tipped.

Scenario classification

We select ten emission pathways from the PROVIDEv1.2 ensemble 32 to span a range of emission reductions (see Fig.  2a ). For each of these pathways, we use the resulting probabilistic GMT trajectory (assessed using FaIR v.1.6.2 35 ) (see Fig.  2b , Supplementary Fig.  2 ) to force a model of interacting tipping elements 34 designed to explore different near-term overshoot pathways, peak warmings, and long-term behaviour. We consider the full percentile uncertainty of the PROVIDE scenarios representing equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.01–4.22 °C (5–95% range) per CO 2 doubling 35 , resulting in temperature trajectories that may deviate by more than 0.5 °C from the median.

The scenarios were chosen with policy relevance in mind, representing different levels of mitigation and thereby leading to different magnitudes and lengths of overshoot above the LTTG of the Paris Agreement (see Table  1 ). We classify the scenarios into three groups according to whether they achieve NZGHG emissions by 2100—as set out in the Paris Agreement Article 4.1—or not, and whether they maintain NZGHG in the long term: (i) ‘No-NZGHG’, (ii) ‘No-long-term-NZGHG’, and (iii) ‘NZGHG’ scenarios. NZGHG is understood here as achieving net zero Kyoto GHG emissions, i.e. CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, SF 6 , HFC, and PFC emissions, as aggregated with the GWP100 metric 36 . We classify the scenarios that reach net zero emissions by 2100, however, beyond this century return to positive emissions that lead to constant rather than declining long-term temperature as ‘No-long-term-NZGHG’. The scenarios that do not reach net zero emissions by 2100 are classified as ‘No-NZGHG’. In our selection, these scenarios all employ large amounts of negative emissions from about 2130 until temperatures have stabilised at long-term levels at 1.5 or 1 °C, respectively, meaning low positive emissions from 2300 onwards.

Temperature series extension protocol

The PROVIDEv1.2 time series were linearly extrapolated beyond the year 2300, by either continuing with the stabilisation temperature, if reached in 2300, or otherwise continuing the temperature trajectories with the average slope of the time series per scenario in the period 2290–2300 until they return to 0 °C temperature increase relative to the 1850–1900 average (‘preindustrial’), remaining stable thereafter.

Modelling and propagating uncertainties of coupled climate tipping elements

The dynamics of the four interacting tipping elements (GIS, WAIS, AMOC, AMAZ) are governed by a well-established stylised coupled statistical model 13 , 34 based on the following set of coupled ordinary differential equations:

with \(\,n\) an odd integer; we here use \({n}=3\) and perform an additional sensitivity analysis to the exponent presented in the Supplementary materials, using \(\,n=\,5,\,7\,\) (Supplementary Fig.  5 ).

In this model, the state of each of the tipping elements \(i\) is denoted by \({x}_{i}\) . \({x}_{i}\) is divided into a baseline state \({x}_{i}\simeq -1.0\) and a tipped state \({x}_{i}\simeq+1.0\) . We define an element to be tipped at time \(t\) if \({x}_{i}(t)\, > \,0\) . The tipping thresholds in terms of global mean temperature increases \(\varDelta {{\rm {GMT}}}(t)\) are represented by \({T}_{{{\rm {crit}}},i}\) (see Fig.  2d , Supplementary Table  1 ). The time-scale parameter \({\tau }_{i}\) denotes the tipping timescale that an element needs to transition from its fully functional state to its fully tipped state. The values for \({\tau }_{i}\) vary over several orders of magnitude among the four tipping elements (see Fig.  2e , Supplementary Table  1 ).

The interactions between different pairs of tipping elements are modelled by the last term of Eq. ( 1 ). The link strength values \({s}_{{ij}}\) are taken from an expert elicitation 5 , and each represents a physical mechanism (see Supplementary Table  2 ). While these link strength values are quantified as relative strengths 5 , the absolute importance of the interaction is not known for many of the interactions. Therefore, we introduce the interaction-strength parameter \(d\) , which is varied between \(0\) and \(1.0\) , where \(d=0\) means no interaction between the tipping elements and \(d=1.0\) means that the upper limit of any one interaction is of the same order as the strength of the individual dynamic of the tipping element. The prefactor 1/10 sets the coupling term to the same scale as the individual dynamics term by normalising \({s}_{{ij}}\) (where \({s}_{{ij}}\) is limited to ±10) when \(d\) is varied between \(0\) and \(1.0\) .

Setting the upper boundary of \(d=1.0\) for the maximum interaction strength has the following rationale: If interaction values go beyond \(1.0\) , this will lead to scenarios where the interactions between the tipping elements dominate the state of the climate system, i.e. to cases where the tipping of one element nearly always causes a global cascade of tipping events. Paleoclimate observations indicate that functioning ocean currents and rainforests may be present even in light of disintegrated ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica 70 . A value of \(d > 1.0\) therefore appears implausible. We have included a sensitivity analysis of tipping probability to the parameter \(d\) per scenario in our study (see Supplementary Figs.  3 , 4 ), to estimate the relative importance of interactions for tipping probabilities in our approach.

In order to quantify tipping probabilities, we propagate all relevant uncertainties (see Supplementary Tables  1 and 2 ) in the individual tipping element parameters (tipping thresholds \({T}_{{{\rm {crit}}},i}\) , tipping timescale \({\tau }_{i}\) ) as well as in their interaction strength described by the parameters \({s}_{{ij}}\) and \(d\) . As the uncertainties are considerable, we need a substantial number of Monte Carlo simulations to capture their effects accurately. The values of the tipping element uncertainties are sampled using a Quasi-Monte Carlo approach based on a latin-hypercube sampling 71 . This reduces the number of required simulations while at the same time, the uncertainty space is covered extensively. Overall, we consider 1000 individual ensemble members that vary in their tipping thresholds \({T}_{{crit},i}\) , tipping timescales \({\tau }_{i},\) and interaction strength \({s}_{{ij}}\) . This number is multiplied by 11 for the global coupling strength ( \(d\) = 0.0, 0.1, …, 1.0). Lastly, all of these 11,000 ensemble members are run through the 10 PROVIDE scenarios, which are all separated into 9 temperature percentile trajectories. This leaves us with 990,000 simulations overall, with an additional 297,000 simulations for the sensitivity analysis to the exponent \(n\) of the individual dynamics term (see Supplementary Fig.  5 ). The analysis presented in the results section is based on the averaged probabilities across the full variation of the global coupling strength \(d\) . Scenario risk profiles for the full range of outcomes depending on \(d\) can be found in the Supplementary (see Supplementary Figs.  3 and 4 ).

Data availability

The data necessary to reproduce the findings of this study is freely available (CC-BY-4.0 license) at GitHub via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8233417 . In case of questions or requests, please contact T.M., A.E.H. or N.W.

Code availability

The code necessary to reproduce the findings of this study is freely available (CC-BY-4.0 license) at GitHub via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8233417 . In case of questions or requests, please contact T.M., A.E.H. or N.W.

Lenton, T. M. et al. Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105 , 1786–1793 (2008).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Armstrong McKay, D. I. et al. Exceeding 1.5 °C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points. Science 377 , eabn7950 (2022).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rahmstorf, S. et al. Thermohaline circulation hysteresis: a model intercomparison. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32 , L23605 (2005).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Garbe, J., Albrecht, T., Levermann, A., Donges, J. F. & Winkelmann, R. The hysteresis of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Nature 585 , 538–544 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kriegler, E., Hall, J. W., Held, H., Dawson, R. & Schellnhuber, H. J. Imprecise probability assessment of tipping points in the climate system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 , 5041–5046 (2009).

Klose, A. K., Karle, V., Winkelmann, R. & Donges, J. F. Emergence of cascading dynamics in interacting tipping elements of ecology and climate. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7 , 200599 (2020).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wunderling, N., Donges, J. F., Kurths, J. & Winkelmann, R. Interacting tipping elements increase risk of climate domino effects under global warming. Earth Syst. Dyn. 12 , 601–619 (2021).

Lenton, T. M. et al. Climate tipping points—too risky to bet against. Nature 575 , 592–595 (2019).

Valdes, P. Built for stability. Nat. Geosci. 4 , 414–416 (2011).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Wang, S. et al. Mechanisms and impacts of earth system tipping elements. Rev. Geophys. 61 , e2021RG000757 (2023).

Bathiany, S. et al. Beyond bifurcation: using complex models to understand and predict abrupt climate change. Dyn. Stat. Clim. Syst . https://doi.org/10.1093/climsys/dzw004 (2016).

Purich, A. & England, M. H. Historical and future projected warming of Antarctic shelf bottom water in CMIP6 models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48 , e2021GL092752 (2021).

Wunderling, N. et al. Global warming overshoots increase risks of climate tipping cascades in a network model. Nat. Clim. Change 13 , 75–82 (2023).

Dekker, M. M., Von Der Heydt, A. S. & Dijkstra, H. A. Cascading transitions in the climate system. Earth Syst. Dyn. 9 , 1243–1260 (2018).

Fox-Kemper, B. et al. Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change . Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Ch. 9 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2021)

Gregory, J. M., George, S. E. & Smith, R. S. Large and irreversible future decline of the Greenland ice sheet. Cryosphere 14 , 4299–4322 (2020).

Bochow, N. et al. Overshooting the critical threshold for the Greenland ice sheet. Nature 622 , 528–536 (2023).

Flores, B. M. et al. Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system. Nature 626 , 555–564 (2024).

UNFCCC ‘Decision-/CP.27, Sharm El-Sheikh Implementation Plan’ (Advance Unedited Version) . (UNFCCC, 2022).

Caesar, L., Rahmstorf, S., Robinson, A., Feulner, G. & Saba, V. Observed fingerprint of a weakening Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation. Nature 556 , 191–196 (2018).

Ditlevsen, P. & Ditlevsen, S. Warning of a forthcoming collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Nat. Commun. 14 , 4254 (2023).

Rosier, S. H. R. et al. The tipping points and early warning indicators for Pine Island Glacier, West Antarctica. Cryosphere 15 , 1501–1516 (2021).

Boers, N. Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Nat. Clim. Change 11 , 680–688 (2021).

UNFCCC . Adoption of the Paris Agreement , Vol. FCCC/CP/2015/L. 9/Rev. 1 (UNFCCC, 2015).

Kloenne, U. et al. Only halving emissions by 2030 can minimize risks of crossing cryosphere thresholds. Nat. Clim. Change 13 , 9–11 (2023).

Forster, P. M. et al. Indicators of Global Climate Change 2023: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 16 , 2625–2658 (2024).

Rogelj, J. et al. Credibility gap in net-zero climate targets leaves world at high risk. Science 380 , 1014–1016 (2023).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bustamante, M. et al. Ten new insights in climate science 2023/2024. Glob. Sustain . 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.25 (2023).

Kemp, L. et al. Climate Endgame: exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119 , e2108146119 (2022).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ritchie, P. D. L., Clarke, J. J., Cox, P. M. & Huntingford, C. Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate. Nature 592 , 517–523 (2021).

Harrington, L. J., Schleussner, C.-F. & Otto, F. E. L. Quantifying uncertainty in aggregated climate change risk assessments. Nat. Commun. 12 , 7140 (2021).

Lamboll, R., Rogelj, J. & Schleussner, C.-F. A Guide to Scenarios for the PROVIDE Project https://essopenarchive.org/doi/full/10.1002/essoar.10511875.1 (2022).

Byers, E. et al. AR6 Scenarios Database. (Zenodo). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5886912 (2022).

Wunderling, N. et al. Modelling nonlinear dynamics of interacting tipping elements on complex networks: the PyCascades package. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 230 , 3163–3176 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Smith, C. J. et al. FAIR v1.3: a simple emissions-based impulse response and carbon cycle model. Geosci. Model Dev. 11 , 2273–2297 (2018).

Schleussner, C.-F., Nauels, A., Schaeffer, M., Hare, W. & Rogelj, J. Inconsistencies when applying novel metrics for emissions accounting to the Paris agreement. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 , 124055 (2019).

Fuglestvedt, J. et al. Implications of possible interpretations of ‘greenhouse gas balance’ in the Paris Agreement. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 376 , 20160445 (2018).

ADS   Google Scholar  

IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2022).

Rogelj, J., Geden, O., Cowie, A. & Reisinger, A. Net-zero emissions targets are vague: three ways to fix. Nature 591 , 365–368 (2021).

Wunderling, N. et al. Climate tipping point interactions and cascades: a review. EGUsphere 1–45 https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1576 (2023).

MacDougall, A. H. et al. Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from CO 2 . Biogeosciences 17 , 2987–3016 (2020).

King, A. D. et al. Studying climate stabilization at Paris Agreement levels. Nat. Clim. Change 11 , 1010–1013 (2021).

Jones, C. D. et al. The Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP) contribution to C4MIP: quantifying committed climate changes following zero carbon emissions. Geosci. Model Dev. 12 , 4375–4385 (2019).

Williams, R. G., Roussenov, V., Frölicher, T. L. & Goodwin, P. Drivers of continued surface warming after cessation of carbon emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44 , 10,633–10,642 (2017).

MacDougall, A. H., Mallett, J., Hohn, D. & Mengis, N. Substantial regional climate change expected following cessation of CO 2 emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 17 , 114046 (2022).

Pfleiderer, P., Schleussner, C.-F. & Sillmann, J. Limited reversal of regional climate signals in overshoot scenarios. Environ. Res. Clim . https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/ad1c45 (2024).

Höning, D. et al. Multistability and transient response of the Greenland ice sheet to anthropogenic CO 2 emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett . 50 , e2022GL101827 (2023).

Nauels, A. et al. Attributing long-term sea-level rise to Paris Agreement emission pledges. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 23487–23492 (2019).

Kikstra, J. S. et al. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report WGIII climate assessment of mitigation pathways: from emissions to global temperatures. Geosci. Model Dev. 15 , 9075–9109 (2022).

Wunderling, N., Willeit, M., Donges, J. F. & Winkelmann, R. Global warming due to loss of large ice masses and Arctic summer sea ice. Nat. Commun. 11 , 5177 (2020).

Gasser, T. et al. Path-dependent reductions in CO 2 emission budgets caused by permafrost carbon release. Nat. Geosci. 11 , 830–835 (2018).

Schneider von Deimling, T. et al. Estimating the near-surface permafrost-carbon feedback on global warming. Biogeosciences 9 , 649–665 (2012).

Gatti, L. V. et al. Amazonia as a carbon source linked to deforestation and climate change. Nature 595 , 388–393 (2021).

Cox, P. M., Betts, R. A., Jones, C. D., Spall, S. A. & Totterdell, I. J. Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408 , 184–187 (2000).

Rietkerk, M. et al. Evasion of tipping in complex systems through spatial pattern formation. Science 374 , eabj0359 (2021).

Bastiaansen, R., Dijkstra, H. A. & Von Der Heydt, A. S. Fragmented tipping in a spatially heterogeneous world. Environ. Res. Lett. 17 , 045006 (2022).

Lohmann, J. & Ditlevsen, P. D. Risk of tipping the overturning circulation due to increasing rates of ice melt. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2017989118 (2021).

Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42 , 331–345 (2017).

Meinshausen, M. et al. The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500. Geosci. Model Dev. 13 , 3571–3605 (2020).

Winkelmann, R. et al. The Tipping Point Modelling Intercomparison Project (TIPMIP) . EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-17399 (EGU, 2024).

Riahi, K. et al. Cost and attainability of meeting stringent climate targets without overshoot. Nat. Clim. Change 11 , 1063–1069 (2021).

Schleussner, C.-F., Ganti, G., Rogelj, J. & Gidden, M. J. An emission pathway classification reflecting the Paris Agreement climate objectives. Commun. Earth Environ. 3 , 135 (2022).

Riahi, K. et al. Mitigation pathways compatible with long-term goals. In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, 2022).

Smith, S. M. et al. The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal Report 2023 . (2023).

Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—Part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 , 063002 (2018).

Dooley, K., Harrould-Kolieb, E. & Talberg, A. Carbon-dioxide removal and biodiversity: a threat identification framework. Glob. Policy 12 , 34–44 (2021).

Keenan, R. J. Climate change impacts and adaptation in forest management: a review. Ann. Sci. 72 , 145–167 (2015).

Gidden, M. J. et al. Fairness and feasibility in deep mitigation pathways with novel carbon dioxide removal considering institutional capacity to mitigate. Environ. Res. Lett . https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acd8d5 (2023).

Soergel, B. et al. A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda. Nat. Clim. Change 11 , 656–664 (2021).

Hutchinson, D. K. et al. The Eocene–Oligocene transition: a review of marine and terrestrial proxy data, models and model–data comparisons. Clim 17 , 269–315 (2021).

Baudin, M. pyDOE: the Experimental Design Package for Python, Software Available Under the BSD License (3-Clause) https://pythonhosted.org/pyDOE/index.html (2013).

Mastrandrea, M. D. et al. Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to thank our colleague Gaurav Ganti for his helpful comments and support. The study originated in the master course Earth System Science & Anthropocene taught by J.Roc., J.F.D., N.W., and N.H.K. at the University of Potsdam in the summer semester of 2022. T.M., C.F.S., R.D.L. and J.Rog. acknowledge support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programmes under grant agreement No. 101003687 (PROVIDE). N.W., N.H.K., J.Roc. and J.F.D. acknowledge support from the European Research Council Advanced Grant project ERA (Earth Resilience in the Anthropocene, ERC-2016-ADG-743080). N.H.K. is grateful for financial support from the Geo.X Young Academy. J.F.D. is grateful for financial support from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) in the project ‘PIK_Change’ (grant 01LS2001A). The authors gratefully acknowledge the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Land Brandenburg for supporting this project by providing resources on the high-performance computer system at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Tessa Möller, Annika Ernest Högner.

Authors and Affiliations

Energy, Climate and Environment Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

Tessa Möller, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner & Joeri Rogelj

Climate Analytics, Berlin, Germany

Tessa Möller & Carl-Friedrich Schleussner

Earth System Analysis, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany

Tessa Möller, Annika Ernest Högner, Samuel Bien, Niklas H. Kitzmann, Jonathan F. Donges, Johan Rockström & Nico Wunderling

Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

Tessa Möller, Annika Ernest Högner, Samuel Bien & Niklas H. Kitzmann

Institute of Environmental Science and Geography, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

Tessa Möller, Annika Ernest Högner, Samuel Bien & Johan Rockström

Geography Department & IRI THESys, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Carl-Friedrich Schleussner

Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK

Robin D. Lamboll & Joeri Rogelj

Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London, London, UK

Joeri Rogelj

Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Jonathan F. Donges & Johan Rockström

High Meadows Environmental Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

Jonathan F. Donges & Nico Wunderling

Center for Critical Computational Studies (C³S), Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Nico Wunderling

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

T.M. initiated the study. T.M., A.E.H., C.F.S. and N.W. designed the study. T.M., A.E.H. and N.W. led the writing of the manuscript with input from C.F.S., S.B., N.H.K., R.D.L, J.Rog., J.F.D. and J.Roc. N.W. provided the model code. R.D.L and J.Rog. provided scenario data. T.M., A.E.H., and S.B. implemented the model simulations. T.M. and A.E.H. conducted the analysis. T.M., A.E.H., S.B. and N.H.K. prepared the figures. T.M., A.E.H., C.F.S., S.B., N.H.K., R.D.L, J.Rog., J.F.D., J.Roc. and N.W. gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein. N.W. led the supervision of the study.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Tessa Möller or Nico Wunderling .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Communications thanks Nicholas Golledge and the other, anonymous, reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, peer review file, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Möller, T., Högner, A.E., Schleussner, CF. et al. Achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions critical to limit climate tipping risks. Nat Commun 15 , 6192 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49863-0

Download citation

Received : 22 February 2024

Accepted : 21 June 2024

Published : 01 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49863-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Grab your spot at the free arXiv Accessibility Forum

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Robotics

Title: achieving human level competitive robot table tennis.

Abstract: Achieving human-level speed and performance on real world tasks is a north star for the robotics research community. This work takes a step towards that goal and presents the first learned robot agent that reaches amateur human-level performance in competitive table tennis. Table tennis is a physically demanding sport which requires human players to undergo years of training to achieve an advanced level of proficiency. In this paper, we contribute (1) a hierarchical and modular policy architecture consisting of (i) low level controllers with their detailed skill descriptors which model the agent's capabilities and help to bridge the sim-to-real gap and (ii) a high level controller that chooses the low level skills, (2) techniques for enabling zero-shot sim-to-real including an iterative approach to defining the task distribution that is grounded in the real-world and defines an automatic curriculum, and (3) real time adaptation to unseen opponents. Policy performance was assessed through 29 robot vs. human matches of which the robot won 45% (13/29). All humans were unseen players and their skill level varied from beginner to tournament level. Whilst the robot lost all matches vs. the most advanced players it won 100% matches vs. beginners and 55% matches vs. intermediate players, demonstrating solidly amateur human-level performance. Videos of the matches can be viewed at this https URL

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

• Frontiers in Science
• Article hubs
• Imperatives for reducing methane emissions

The methane imperative

Lead article, explore article hub, read article explainer.

• 1 Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
• 2 The Porter School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel
• 3 SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Leiden, Netherlands
• 4 World Energy Outlook Team, International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France
• 5 Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD), Washington, DC, United States
• 6 Department of Physics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States
• 7 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria
• 8 Earth Sciences Division, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States
• 9 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, LSCE-IPSL (CEA-CNRS-UVSQ), Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
• 10 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, United States
• 11 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, UMR 8212 CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, Université de Saclay, Saclay, France
• 12 Global Science, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, United States
• 13 Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States
• 14 Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States

Anthropogenic methane (CH 4 ) emissions increases from the period 1850–1900 until 2019 are responsible for around 65% as much warming as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) has caused to date, and large reductions in methane emissions are required to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. However, methane emissions have been increasing rapidly since ~2006. This study shows that emissions are expected to continue to increase over the remainder of the 2020s if no greater action is taken and that increases in atmospheric methane are thus far outpacing projected growth rates. This increase has important implications for reaching net zero CO 2 targets: every 50 Mt CH 4 of the sustained large cuts envisioned under low-warming scenarios that are not realized would eliminate about 150 Gt of the remaining CO 2 budget. Targeted methane reductions are therefore a critical component alongside decarbonization to minimize global warming. We describe additional linkages between methane mitigation options and CO 2 , especially via land use, as well as their respective climate impacts and associated metrics. We explain why a net zero target specifically for methane is neither necessary nor plausible. Analyses show where reductions are most feasible at the national and sectoral levels given limited resources, for example, to meet the Global Methane Pledge target, but they also reveal large uncertainties. Despite these uncertainties, many mitigation costs are clearly low relative to real-world financial instruments and very low compared with methane damage estimates, but legally binding regulations and methane pricing are needed to meet climate goals.

• The atmospheric methane growth rates of the 2020s far exceed the latest baseline projections; methane emissions need to drop rapidly (as do CO 2 emissions) to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C.
• The abrupt and rapid increase in methane growth rates in the early 2020s is likely attributable largely to the response of wetlands to warming with additional contributions from fossil fuel use, in both cases implying that anthropogenic emissions must decrease more than expected to reach a given warming goal.
• Rapid reductions in methane emissions this decade are essential to slowing warming in the near future, limiting overshoot by the middle of the century and keeping low-warming carbon budgets within reach.
• Methane and CO 2 mitigation are linked, as land area requirements to reach net zero CO 2 are about 50–100 million ha per GtCO 2 removal via bioenergy with carbon capture and storage or afforestation; reduced pasture is the most common source of land in low-warming scenarios.
• Strong, rapid, and sustained methane emission reduction is part of the broader climate mitigation agenda and complementary to targets for CO 2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases, but a net zero target specifically for methane is neither necessary nor plausible.
• Many mitigation costs are low relative to real-world financial instruments and very low compared with methane damage estimates, but legally binding regulations and widespread pricing are needed to encourage the uptake of even negative cost options.

Introduction

Worldwide efforts to limit climate change are rightly focused on carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), the primary driver ( 1 ). However, since humanity has failed to adequately address climate change for several decades, keeping warming below agreed goals now requires that we address all major climate pollutants. Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas driving climate change. Out of a total observed warming of 1.07°C during the period 2010 to 2019, the Working Group I (WGI) 2021 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) attributed 0.5°C to methane emissions ( 1 ). However, in many respects, methane mitigation has been neglected relative to CO 2 . For example, only ~2% of global climate finance is estimated to go towards methane abatement ( 2 ). Similarly, only about 13% of global methane emissions are covered by current policy mechanisms ( 3 ). With dramatic climate changes already occurring and methane providing substantial leverage to slow warming in the near future and reduce surface ozone pollution, political will to mitigate methane has recently increased, especially following the Global Methane Assessment (GMA) published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) in May 2021 ( 4 ). The Assessment showed that reducing methane was an extremely cost-effective way to rapidly slow warming and contribute to climate stabilization while also providing large benefits to human health, crop yield, and labor productivity. The GMA also demonstrated that various technical and behavioral options were currently available to achieve such emission cuts. Drawing upon that Assessment and related analysis ( 5 ), the United States and European Union launched the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) in November 2021 at the 26th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26), under which countries set a collective goal of reducing anthropogenic methane emissions by at least 30% (relative to 2020 levels) by 2030. By COP28 in November 2023, participation in the GMP had increased to 155 countries that collectively account for more than half of global anthropogenic methane emissions.

However, far more needs to be done if the world is to change the current methane trajectory and meet the goals of the GMP and other national pledges. This article presents three imperatives supported by a series of analyses (detailed further in Methods):

● Imperative 1—to change course and reverse methane emissions growth—describes changes in methane observed during the recent past and projected for the near future and compares these with low-warming scenarios (Analysis A).

● Imperative 2—to align methane and CO 2 mitigation — discusses methane targets and metrics (Analysis B), investigates the connections between methane emissions and CO 2 mitigation efforts (Analysis C), and assesses their impacts (Analyses D–F).

● Imperative 3—to optimize methane abatement options and policies—presents analyses of the mitigation potential of national-level abatement options (Analysis G) and evaluates their cost-effectiveness (Analysis H) across the 50 countries with greatest mitigation potential by subsector (i.e., landfill, coal, oil, and gas) using a novel tool. We also compare profit versus pricing from controlling methane emissions from oil production (Analysis I) and describe ongoing efforts to support national and regional decision-making.

Finally, we outline paths forward for improving scientific understanding of methane emissions, abatement opportunities, and physical processes that will affect future methane levels in the atmosphere.

Imperative 1—to change course and reverse methane emissions growth

Atmospheric methane concentrations are rising faster than projections.

Scenarios consistent with temperature goals to limit warming to 1.5°C, or well below 2°C, with no or limited overshoot include large and rapid reductions in methane ( 4 , 6 ). In the real world, however, atmospheric methane has been rising rapidly since 2006 and by the end of the 2010s reached 5-year average growth rates not seen since the 1980s ( 4 , 7 , 8 ). Methane concentration increases in 2021 are the largest recorded, with high values throughout the period 2020 to 2023 (Analysis A; Figure 1A ). The uncertainty ranges from the ground-based and satellite datasets typically overlap, leading to high confidence in the growth rate values. Using a mass balance approach assuming that the methane loss rate is proportional to the atmospheric methane loading (i.e., a constant methane atmospheric lifetime of 9.1 yr) ( 12 ), emissions appear to have risen substantially from 2020 to 2023 ( Figure 1B ).

Figure 1 Accelerating methane growth rates and emissions over recent decades. (A) Observed methane annual growth rates (ppb yr −1 ) through 2022 or 2023 from the ground-based networks of the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ( 9 ) and the World Meteorological Organization ( 10 ) and from satellite data from the Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service (CAMS) ( 11 ) total column datasets. (B) Estimated emissions and sinks through 2023 based on the NOAA abundance observations. Emissions and sinks estimates are based on a simple box model assuming sinks are proportional to the atmospheric abundance of methane. Uncertainties in the ground-based and satellite data are around 0.5 ppb yr −1 , and 3 ppb yr −1 , respectively. See Methods (Analysis A) for further details. Data for this and other figures are available in Supplementary Table 1 .

We compare the observed atmospheric methane growth rates with values under recent baseline scenarios developed with integrated assessment models (IAMs) in the early 2020s and “bottom-up” engineering approach models. All include data on actual developments through the period ~2018 to 2020 ( 13 ). The observed growth rates are roughly 1.5- to 2.5-fold higher than the multi-model mean baseline or bottom-up projections from 2020 to 2022 ( Figure 2 ). The observed growth rates also exceed any individual model’s baseline projections during that period. Observed 2023 growth rates show the highest values of any individual model, well above multi-model means or bottom-up analyses. Baseline scenarios are used to analyze how additional technical, behavioral, and policy options can mitigate climate change. That real-world methane growth rates exceed baseline projections therefore indicates that policies may have to be even stronger than those in existing analyses to reach the Paris Agreement’s goals. Indeed, comparisons of observed atmospheric growth rates with those in 1.5°C-consistent scenarios (using the 2018 IPCC scenarios that did not include observations past 2017) show enormous differences ( Figure 2 ), emphasizing how much stronger policies need to be to reach low-warming goals.

Figure 2 Projected and observed methane growth rates. Methane abundance growth rates during the 2020s from baseline scenarios from the ADVANCE ( https://www.fp7-advance.eu/ ), NAVIGATE ( https://www.navigate-h2020.eu/ ) ( 14 ), and ENGAGE ( https://www.engage-climate.org/ ) projects using integrated assessment models (IAMs; data show multi-model means) and from the “bottom-up” analyses of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) ( 15 ) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ( 16 ) (solid lines). Modeled baseline values are averages for the 2020–2025 and 2025–2030 periods as data were produced at 5-year intervals. The shaded area shows the full range across the four to six IAMs for each scenario. Scenario concentration changes are derived from scenario emissions using a simple box model and assumed constant natural emissions of around 200 million tonnes (Mt) yr −1 . Growth rates under 1.5°C-consistent scenarios with policies beginning in 2015 ( 17 ) are also shown for comparison along with their full ranges. Projected rates are compared with observations (circles) from the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) observation network with 1 standard deviation uncertainties. See Methods (Analysis A) for further details.

Causes of increased methane growth rates and discrepancies with baseline scenarios

Multiple assessments have concluded that the growth in methane concentrations over the 2007–2019 period is largely attributable to increased emissions from fossil fuels and livestock ( 18 – 21 ). However, some studies attribute much of this increase to wetlands (particularly in the tropics)—an attribution potentially supported by isotopic data indicating increased biogenic methane ( 22 – 25 ). In general, longer-term increases in wetland methane emissions (resulting from a human-caused warming climate) are expected to be small over these years as the climate feedback is weak according to models, modern observations, and paleoclimate data ( 19 , 25 – 30 ). Methane emissions associated with thawing permafrost and glacial retreat are also expected to increase as the climate warms, though the magnitude is thought to be small and quite uncertain ( 19 , 31 , 32 ). A small portion of this longer-term increase in the growth rate may be due to growing areas of rice cultivation in Africa ( 33 ). Over the longer 2007–2019 period, there thus remains ambiguity in the cause of observed emission trends given geographical and sectorial methane source diversity.

Investigations into the cause of the large increase in the growth rate in the 2020–2023 period relative to the prior years are just beginning. Some atmospheric-chemistry transport modeling studies have attributed more than half of the increased growth in 2020 relative to 2019 to changes in methane removal owing to a decline in the hydroxyl radical OH driven by COVID-19-related changes in emissions, primarily decreases in nitrogen oxides ( 34 – 36 ). However, other changes that constrain methane removal rates using methane observations attribute just 14–34% of the increased 2020 growth rate to changes in the sink ( 37 , 38 ). The persistence of the very high growth rates in 2021 and 2022 also supports evidence of the role of reductions in OH and methane loss rates driven by COVID-19-related emissions changes. This is consistent with Feng et al. ( 38 ), who found the role of sink changes decreased from ~34% in 2020 to just 10% in 2021. Thus, changes in methane removal appear unlikely to play a dominant role in driving the higher 2020–2023 growth rates.

Sink changes playing a minor role implies that the jump in the growth rate from 7 to 10 ppb yr −1 during the 2015–2019 period to ~12–18 ppb yr −1 during the 2020–2023 period is attributable to increased emissions, which can be examined using “bottom-up” analyses. Emission increases are unlikely to be attributable to the waste or agriculture sectors, which vary minimally from year to year. For example, global cattle numbers grew at an average rate of 1.1% yr −1 over the 2020–2022 period; this was only modestly larger than the 0.9% yr −1 average over the 2015–2019 period ( 39 ). This translates to an increase of <1 Tg yr −1 assuming constant methane emissions per animal, a small fraction of the implied emissions increase ( Figure 1B ) (and in contrast to the longer-term growth in cattle numbers which leads to an increase of ~10 Tg yr −1 over the 2007–2019 period). The more rapid growth of atmospheric methane over the 2020–2023 period therefore appears to be primarily linked to increased emissions from fossil fuels and wetlands, which together may account for the underestimated growth rates in the IAMs ( Figure 2 ).

For fossil fuels, there is evidence that investments in midstream capacity have been inadequate to keep up with the volume of extracted gas as firms ramp up production. For instance, the state-owned oil company in Mexico flared ~63 billion cubic feet of gas from a single field (Ixachi) over the 2020–2022 period, representing more than 30% of the field’s total production and being in violation of Mexican law ( 40 ). Flaring to mitigate methane release is imperfect in the field: aerial measurements over multiple United States oil and gas regions indicate an efficiency of around 91% owing to both incomplete combustion and unlit flares, which, combined with large volumes of flared gas due to midstream capacity shortages, results in large methane emissions ( 41 , 42 ). Studies report inefficient or inactive flares in other regions, such as Turkmenistan ( 43 ).

Additionally, some projections incorporate current emissions from national reporting, whereas studies using atmospheric inversions from satellite data suggest that oil- and gas-extracting countries in central Asia and the Persian Gulf region typically systematically underreport their emissions ( 44 ). This is similar to findings for the United States and Canada ( 45 , 46 ). National reporting also generally omits so-called super-emitters ( 47 – 49 ), which are discussed further below. Large underestimates in initial methane emissions could lead to underestimated emission growth. Discrete events may have also played a role, with the COVID-19 pandemic being linked to increased methane emissions from the energy sector in early 2020 ( 50 ) and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine causing increased efforts to expand supplies of gas and coal ( 51 ). There are thus several reasons fossil fuel emissions might be growing faster than in baseline scenarios.

However, increased methane emissions from wetlands appear likely to have driven a larger portion of the higher 2020–2022 growth rates based on the latitudinal gradients of growth rates and a trend toward lighter (biogenic) isotopes of atmospheric methane ( 52 ). The cause may be in part a persistent La Niña pattern that likely enhanced tropical wetland methane emissions during the 2020–2022 period. The wetland methane increase has been estimated at ~4–12 million tonnes (Mt) yr −1 based on empirical analyses of prior events ( 25 , 53 , 54 ), though another study found a weaker La Niña impact on methane ( 55 ). A recent modeling study shows a rise of ~5 Mt yr −1 in the wetland methane flux for the 2020–2021 period relative to the prior 3 years ( 25 ), predominantly from tropical ecosystems and consistent with satellite studies ( 38 ). Wetlands were also implicated in earlier analyses of the 2020 growth rate increase relative to 2019 ( 35 ), with an especially large increase in emissions from Africa ( 37 ). A rise of ~5 Mt yr −1 would be a relatively modest contribution to the overall jump in emissions estimated at ~30 Mt yr −1 for the 2020–2022 period relative to the prior 5 years ( Figure 1A ). There are, however, substantial uncertainties in terms of tropical wetland methane emissions ( 56 ), and modeled wetland methane emissions may be biased substantially low, especially over Africa ( 57 , 58 ), so the increase shown in the models may be an underestimate. The La Niña is superimposed on anthropogenic warming and changes in climate extremes that could also lead to higher wetland methane fluxes than in previous La Niña events.

A switch from La Niña to El Niño during 2023 appears to have reduced the observed growth rate ( Figure 2 ), supporting a large role for wetland responses to La Niña in the very high 2020–2022 growth rates. However, emissions appear to have remained substantially higher in 2023 relative to pre-2020 values ( Figure 1B ), suggesting longer-term contributions from increasing anthropogenic sources along with a forced trend in natural sources. Recent work also suggests a potentially permanent shift to an altered state of enhanced wetland methane emissions ( 8 ). The next 5–10 years of monitoring will, therefore, be critical in understanding both short- and long-term feedback and drivers of accelerated growth rates. While current estimates suggest increases in fossil fuel emissions, especially wetland methane, likely dominated the growth rate jump after 2019, reconciliation of observed growth rates with emissions inventories remains elusive. Regardless of the relative contribution of the two most probable major sources of the longer-term 2007–2023 increase in growth rates—i.e., wetland feedback from human-driven warming and human-driven emissions—the implications are identical: anthropogenic emissions must decrease more than previously expected to reach a given climate goal.

Imperative 2—to align methane and carbon dioxide mitigation

Methane and co 2 emissions targets.

As methane targets are currently being set in many countries, it is important to understand how these fit within the broader climate change mitigation agenda and the push for “net zero CO 2 ”. Least-cost 1.5°C- and 2°C-consistent scenarios require major and rapid reductions in methane alongside CO 2 ( 4 , 6 , 17 ). For example, AR6 1.5°C scenarios with limited or no overshoot achieve net zero CO 2 emissions around the middle of the century while methane emissions decrease by a mean of 35% (standard deviation: ±10%) in 2030, 46% (±8%) in 2040, and 53% (±8%) in 2050 relative to 2020 levels (Analysis B; Figure 3 ) ( 59 ). Global emissions targets well within these ranges, as in the Global Methane Pledge, are thus aligned with the Paris Climate Agreement. Delaying methane reductions past the timescales in 1.5°C-consistent scenarios risks higher overshoot, peak temperatures, and costs.

Figure 3 Decrease in total methane emissions and increase in agricultural share of the remainder in 1.5°C-consistent scenarios. Mean decrease in anthropogenic methane emissions relative to 2020 under least-cost 1.5°C consistent scenarios with policies beginning around 2020, including the standard deviation across the 53 scenarios analyzed and the maximum and minimum values across the scenarios. Also shown is the mean share of anthropogenic emissions from the agriculture sector in the same scenarios. All scenarios for which agricultural as well as total emissions were available were included ( 59 ). Note that the median scenario is virtually identical to the mean shown here. See Methods (Analysis B) for further details.

Net zero CO 2 emissions is a relevant concept because options are available currently to drastically reduce CO 2 in almost all emitting sectors, and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options, including afforestation, exist for the remainder. Removal options are in the early research stages and are not currently available for methane or nitrous oxide (N 2 O). For those gases, we therefore discuss “zero anthropogenic emissions” (i.e., without the “net”).

The vastly different lifetimes of methane and CO 2 lead to markedly different requirements for zero-emission targets. CO 2 , as well as other long-lived greenhouse gases (LLGHGs) such as N 2 O and many fluorinated gases, accumulates in the atmosphere; emissions must thus reach net zero to achieve long-term climate stabilization ( 17 ). In contrast, methane and other short-lived pollutants do not accumulate, and hence long-term climate stabilization requires only constant emissions rather than zero, with weakly decreasing emissions yielding shorter-term stabilization. Consistent with this and owing to the difficulty in reaching zero emissions in some sectors such as agriculture, none of the least-cost 1.5°C-consistent scenarios achieve zero methane ( Figure 3 ).

Discussion of net zero GHG targets could easily be misinterpreted to imply that we can wait to reduce non-CO 2 emissions since those scenarios that do achieve net zero GHGs reach net zero CO 2 first. For long-term climate stabilization, the temperature depends upon the total LLGHGs emitted before reaching net zero along with the continuing short-lived pollutant emissions rate at that time, and there exists a similar relationship for peak temperatures under a peak-and-decline scenario. Article 4.1 of the Paris Climate Agreement calls for “balancing sources and removals of GHGs”, but this applies to all GHGs collectively. Achieving such a balance for methane is neither required under Article 4.1 nor for meeting the temperature goals established in Article 2 of the Agreement. In practice, methane emission projections in 1.5°C-consistent scenarios are substantial through 2100 ( Figure 3 ). Thus, scenarios that achieve net zero GHGs accomplish this not by lowering non-CO 2 emissions to zero but by aggressive deployment of CDR that offsets residual methane and N 2 O. This leads to gradually decreasing warming, a requirement during overshoot scenarios. Reducing warming after reaching net zero CO 2 thus requires CDR, reductions of methane and/or N 2 O, or a combination of these. Such reductions often lead to net zero GHGs by 2100 but not always ( 6 ). This suggests that while net zero GHGs may be a laudable post-net zero CO 2 goal, it might be more useful to focus separately on net LLGHG and methane targets than on net zero GHGs, which combine long- and short-lived pollutants in a metric-dependent way that obscures policy-relevant information ( 60 ) and may not be required or may be insufficient to achieve a given temperature target depending upon prior emissions.

Additionally, residual methane emissions in 1.5°C-consistent scenarios are dominated by the agricultural sector ( Figure 3 ). A net zero GHG target that was interpreted as requiring zero methane could thus lead to conflicts between the pressure to reduce emissions from agriculture and the need to feed the world’s population. Though reducing agricultural emissions of both LLGHGs and methane is necessary and feasible ( 4 , 61 , 62 ), planning for net zero GHGs may lead to unrealistic expectations that could hinder progress in some countries and sectors. We, therefore, recommend that targets be formulated using net LLGHG emissions but total emission levels for short-lived pollutants.

There is an interplay between these two factors, as the higher the level at which emissions of short-lived warming pollutants remain the less total LLGHG emissions are permitted until reaching net zero to achieve a given warming level. This can be quantified using the remaining carbon budget for a particular temperature goal. To have a two-thirds chance of staying below 2°C, the remaining CO 2 budget from 2020 is ~1150 GtCO 2 ( 19 ), assuming roughly 35% reductions in methane by 2050. Every 100 Mt yr −1 of methane not permanently cut would take away about 300 GtCO 2 from the CO 2 budget over the next 50–100 years ( 63 ). This highlights the critical role of methane reductions in facilitating a plausible CO 2 reduction trajectory consistent with the Paris Agreement: the remaining carbon budget would otherwise become too small to make achieving those goals feasible ( 64 , 65 ).

Similarly, the more methane has been reduced upon reaching net zero CO 2 emissions the less CDR would be required. For example, every additional 50 Mt yr −1 of methane permanently reduced would offset the need for ~150 Gt GtCO 2 CDR over the following few decades [and >200 Gt GtCO 2 over the longer term ( 66 )]. Given the many challenges and potential negative impacts of CDR ( 19 , 67 , 68 ), this continues to motivate us to pursue the greatest possible methane reductions.

Measuring progress: methane and CO 2 metrics

In addition to setting sound targets, it is important to use appropriate metrics to measure progress. Evaluations typically use so-called “CO 2 -equivalence” (CO 2 e), which combines all gases using the global warming potential (GWP) at a fixed time horizon, generally 100 years [e.g., ( 66 )]. Using any single timescale to compare short-lived pollutants and LLGHGs provides an incomplete picture [e.g., ( 69 )]. More complete climate information is gained by using multiple timescales ( 70 , 71 ), among other means.

A new metric, GWP*, represents the differing effects of changes in short- and long-lived emissions on future global mean temperatures better than GWP ( 72 ). As such, the GWP* metric captures the 50–100-year relationship between continued methane emissions and the carbon budget. Hence, GWP* can be useful when examining decadal-century scale temperature changes, though multiple metrics better reflect the multiple timescales of potential interest. GWP* is applied to sustained changes in emissions, requiring careful consideration of the fact that every tonne of methane emission that persists decreases the remaining carbon budget.

One could evaluate the contribution of emissions relative to preindustrial levels using GWP*, which would show the large warming impact of present-day methane emissions ( 60 ). However, some countries and companies have used GWP* to suggest that since keeping current methane emissions constant does not add additional future warming, continued constant high levels of methane emissions are therefore not problematic and a reduction of their methane emissions is equivalent to CO 2 removal [e.g., ( 73 – 75 )]. This use of GWP* to justify the continuance of current emission levels essentially ignores emissions responsible for roughly half the warming to date and appears to exempt current high methane emitters from mitigation. This is neither equitable nor consistent with keeping carbon budgets within reach. Many current high emitters are wealthy groups, and the use of GWP* to evaluate changes relative to current levels implies the wealthy consuming or profiting from a large amount of methane-emitting products (such as gas, oil, or cattle-based foods) has no impact, whereas the poor, who currently consume little, would be penalized for consuming more ( 76 ). Policymakers should also consider impacts beyond climate when choosing policies affecting methane ( 4 , 77 – 79 ).

Connections between methane and CO 2 mitigation options

Though the different lifetimes of methane and CO 2 have profound implications for target setting and metrics, the separation between short- and long-lived pollutants is not complete. Much like other short-lived pollutants, methane induces climate changes that affect the carbon cycle—thereby exerting a long-term impact ( 80 , 81 ). This carbon-cycle response to warming adds ~5% to the forcing attributable to methane emissions. Additionally, methane emissions lead to increased surface ozone, which is harmful to many plants and reduces terrestrial carbon uptake. Climate impacts of methane emissions could be increased by up to 10% considering ozone–vegetation interactions ( 12 ).

In addition to these Earth system interactions, mitigation options also link methane and CO 2 . Decarbonization policies phasing out fossil fuels would clearly reduce fossil sector methane emissions. However, those reductions would produce only about one-third of the methane reductions in 1.5°C scenarios by 2030 ( 4 , 82 ). The use of non-fossil methane sources for energy production also modestly reduces CO 2 emissions by displacing demand for fossil fuels, adding ~10% to the long-term and ~3% to the near-term climate effect of methane capture. Other estimates suggest that using non-fossil methane for power generation could increase the monetized environmental benefits of methane capture even further—by 14% and 25% for discount rates of 4% and 10%, respectively. These larger values reflect the inclusion of both climate and air pollution damages and stem primarily from reduced air pollutants associated with coal burning ( 78 ).

Another intersection between decarbonization and methane could occur in a hydrogen economy. Fugitive methane emission rates above ~2% would cancel the near-term climate benefits of “blue hydrogen” with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) compared to burning natural gas ( 83 ). Furthermore, hydrogen leakage would extend methane’s lifetime by lowering the atmospheric oxidative capacity [e.g., ( 84 , 85 )].

Land use also links mitigation options for methane and CO 2 . There are large land area requirements for either bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) or afforestation, two sources of CDR that most low-warming scenarios require to compensate for slow decarbonization and/or continued emissions from the sectors most difficult to decarbonize ( 17 ). Given the demands on arable land to feed a growing population and the urgent need to restore and conserve biodiversity, a plausible source of additional land is reduced numbers of pasture-raised livestock, which could also reduce methane emissions.

To probe this connection, we examined 145 least-cost 1.5°C scenarios for which trends in pasture area and BECCS deployment were available (Analysis C) ( 86 ). The deployment of BECCS closely mirrors a decline in pasture area in these scenarios ( Figure 4A ), a relationship noted but not quantified in AR6 ( 59 ). Examining the multi-model mean decadal changes from the 2040s onwards, when deployment of BECCS is large enough to show clear trends, we find highly correlated changes, with every 10 exajoule (EJ) of BECCS associated with ~38 million ha pasture area decrease ( Figure 4B ) and ~0.5 Gt yr −1 CO 2 removal. Adding in the 2030s increases the slope to 42 million ha per 10 EJ, whereas examining each individual scenario’s changes, rather than the multi-model mean, shows the slope is 28 million ha per 10 EJ. These comparisons give a sense of the robustness associated with this relationship.

Figure 4 Trade-offs between land use for pasture and for carbon uptake. (A) Multi-model mean trends in bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) deployment and in pasture area in the 145 available least-cost 1.5°C scenarios. (B) Correlation between decadal changes in the multi-model means of these two quantities from the 2040s to 2090s. Data are from seven integrated assessment models (IAMs) from the 2022 AR6 scenario database ( 86 ). Also shown are land use changes from simulations covering 22–106 <2°C scenarios per model in individual IAMs for 2020–2050 (C) and 2050–2100 (D) , including linear trend estimates across the scenarios. See Methods (Analysis C) for further details.

For reforestation and afforestation, meeting goals in national climate pledges is projected to require almost 1.2 billion ha of land ( 87 ). For context, the current crop area is about 1.2 billion ha (including animal fodder), so changes in land used for crops for humans would be too small to provide the land needed while maintaining food security. While some land needs might be met via restoration of degraded lands, more than half was estimated to require conversion of pasture or land currently used for animal fodder.

To evaluate the relationship between afforestation plus biofuel land use and pasture, we examined a larger AR6 set of scenarios that keep warming below 2°C, finding 266 scenarios (Analysis C). Averaged across the models, pasture area decreases by 1.1 ha per 1 ha land used for carbon uptake from 2020–2050 and by 0.6 ha from 2050–2100. Assuming carbon uptake per ha biofuel crops is similar to afforestation, this corresponds to ~94 million and 54 million ha of pasture required per GtCO 2 removal, with a range of 28–251 million ha across the models. This range encompasses the results based on BECCS alone in the 1.5°C scenarios. Together, these analyses show robust evidence of a tradeoff between land used for CDR and pasture with a value that is highly model-dependent. In the four models including afforestation, changes in land deployed for carbon uptake are highly correlated with pasture decreases across the scenarios, with R 2 >0.6 and 0.4 for 2020–2050 and 2050–2100, respectively ( Figures 4C, D ). Within the IAMs, MESSAGE and REMIND show fairly linear relationships whereas the land use tradeoff is more dependent on the scenario in WITCH and IMAGE ( Figures 4C, D ). Land for CDR is used primarily for BECCS in MESSAGE and WITCH, primarily for afforestation in IMAGE, and comparably for those options in REMIND, highlighting that the tradeoff with pasture holds for all uptake options deployed in the models. Inter-model differences presumably stem from varying assumptions about the availability of non-agricultural land for afforestation, changes in non-energy crop area, and the intensity of carbon uptake via afforestation or energy crops.

The results show that shifting livestock practices, especially healthier dietary choices that in many places lead to reduced consumption of cattle-based foods and hence decreased livestock numbers, not only affect methane emissions but are also tightly coupled with CDR strategies ( 88 ). Both current pledges for biological carbon removal and BECCS deployment at the scales envisioned in many scenarios likely require large reductions in pasture area, and dietary changes could free up pasture without risking food security. We note that both biological carbon removal and BECCS come with substantial challenges and side effects that affect the likelihood that they will ever be societally acceptable at scale ( 19 , 87 ).

In summary, reductions in methane emissions are not just complementary to CO 2 reductions but can directly contribute to reduced atmospheric CO 2 via carbon cycle interactions and fossil fuel displacement. They can also potentially play an important role in facilitating the deployment of, as well as reducing the need for, CDR; this could reduce additional feedback, including increased volatile biogenic compound emissions following afforestation that might increase methane’s lifetime ( 89 ).

Impacts of methane and carbon dioxide mitigation

As noted, methane emissions are estimated to account for 0.5°C of the total observed warming of 1.07°C through the 2010–2019 period ( 1 ). As the climate is affected by both warming and cooling pollutants, the attribution of the fraction of observed warming to a specific component depends on which drivers are included in the comparison. Compared with the total observed warming, methane emissions are responsible for ~47% of that value; in comparison with the warming attributable to all well-mixed GHGs, methane emissions are responsible for ~34%; and in comparison with the temperature increase due to all warming agents, methane emissions contribute ~28%. As the overlap between methane sources and other climate drivers is relatively limited, methane could potentially be reduced with only modest effects on other emissions. Comparison with observed net warming may therefore be most useful, but each of these comparisons is useful for specific purposes. To prevent public confusion, presentations that imply methane’s contribution is being evaluated against observed warming when it is not and that do not state if they are referring to emissions or concentrations, such as the common statement that methane is responsible for around 30% of global warming since pre-industrial times [e.g., ( 90 , 91 )], should be avoided. Note also that the share of warming attributable to a given driver varies depending upon the baseline period (1850–1900 in AR6).

Emission reduction policies that target methane and CO 2 have complementary and additive benefits for the climate. We analyzed the response of global mean annual average surface air temperatures to emissions under various scenarios to isolate the effects of decarbonization and targeted methane emission controls (Analysis D). Contemporaneous reductions in cooling aerosols associated with decarbonization lead to modest net warming over the first few decades [e.g., ( 13 , 92 – 95 )]. Given the smaller role of other non-CO 2 climate pollutants, methane emission cuts therefore provide the strongest leverage for near-term warming reduction ( Figure 5 ) ( 13 , 95 ). Achievement of methane reductions consistent with the average in 1.5°C scenarios could reduce warming by ~0.3°C by 2050 in comparison with baseline increases ( 4 ). A hypothetical complete elimination of anthropogenic methane emissions could avert up to 1°C of warming by 2050 relative to the high emissions Shared Socioeconomic Pathway [SSP; ( 96 )] SSP3–7.0 scenario ( 97 ). This large near-term impact partly reflects methane’s short lifetime; >90% of increased atmospheric methane would be removed within 30 years of an abrupt cessation of anthropogenic emissions compared with only ~25% of increased CO 2 following CO 2 emission cessation ( 98 ). Encouragingly, were humanity to abruptly cease emissions, the present combined anthropogenic CO 2 and methane concentration increases versus preindustrial [weighted by their warming contributions, including the ozone response to methane ( 12 )] levels would be halved within 30 years. Hence the near-term “Zero Emissions Commitment” of warming already “in the pipeline” ( 19 , 99 ) is much smaller considering both methane and CO 2 rather than CO 2 alone.

Figure 5 Climate impacts of decarbonization and methane reductions. The climate response (measured by change in global mean surface temperature relative to 2020 values) to reductions of all pollutants (including methane) under a decarbonization scenario; methane alone under a decarbonization scenario that substantially reduces energy sector emissions and under a 1.5°C scenario; and decarbonization and methane reductions consistent with 1.5°C—all relative to constant 2020 emissions. Values are averages across Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) 1, 2, and 5 (1.5°C was infeasible under SSP3 in four of four models and under SSP4 in two of three models). See Methods (Analysis D) for further details.

Policies leading to rapid and deep cuts in both CO 2 and methane provide the strongest benefits across the century ( Figures 5 ; 6A ). To further characterize the relative contributions, we analyzed temperature responses, and their effects on premature mortality, applied to various mitigation options under the “middle-of-the-road” SSP2 (Analysis E). Importantly, future CO 2 emissions exert the strongest leverage on long-term climate change, and successfully targeted methane reduction without simultaneous CO 2 reductions over the next 10–30 years would therefore merely delay long-term warming ( Figure 6A ). Conversely, successful reduction of CO 2 (and co-emissions) without simultaneous additional targeted methane reduction over this period would weakly affect long-term temperatures if methane reductions were achieved later ( Figure 6A ) but would lead to higher warming and substantially increased risk of overshooting warming thresholds over the next few decades. In addition to the impacts on warming, a 20-year delay in methane reductions from 2020 to 2040 would also lead to 4.2 (1.3–6.8; 95% confidence) million additional premature deaths due to ozone exposure by 2050 that could have been avoided with rapid methane reductions based on our standard epidemiological estimates ( Figure 6B ). That value becomes ~8.8 (5.5–11.1) million additional deaths using alternative cardiovascular and additional child-mortality relationships (Analysis E).

Figure 6 Temperature and health impacts of methane abatement under various scenarios. (A) Climate response (measured by change in global mean surface temperature relative to 1850–1900 values) to all pollutants under the baseline Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) 2 scenario; the SSP2 baseline plus methane abatement consistent with a 1.5°C scenario; the SSP2 1.5°C scenario (SSP2–1.9); the SSP2 1.5°C scenario without any additional methane abatement beyond that occurring due to the phase-out of fossil fuels; and the SSP2 1.5°C scenario with additional methane abatement beyond that occurring due to the phase-out of fossil fuels beginning in 2040 rather than 2020. (B) Avoided premature deaths resulting from methane reductions relative to those under the SSP2 baseline (note that SSP2 baseline plus methane abatement consistent with a 1.5°C scenario is identical to the SSP2 1.5°C scenario for this impact and so is not shown). See Methods (Analysis E) for further details.

In addition to reducing early deaths, cutting methane emissions will reduce near-term warming impacts on labor, which grow non-linearly with warming ( 100 ). We used our climate Analysis E as the basis to estimate corresponding labor effects of changing heat exposure (Analysis F). Assuming outdoor workers are in the shade, achieving 1.5°C-consistent methane abatement under SSP2 avoids roughly US$250 billion in worldwide potential heavy outdoor labor losses by 2050 (range US$190–US$390 over impact functions; values in 2017 US$ purchasing power parity). However, for outdoor workers in the sun, benefits would be roughly US$315 billion (range US$211–US$475). These values, for heavy outdoor labor only, are not comparable to impacts covering medium and light labor (for which the evidence base is weaker).

Imperative 3—to optimize methane abatement options and policies

Global context.

Despite substantial uncertainties in emissions from specific subsectors, global-scale anthropogenic methane emissions are reasonably well-constrained. Agriculture and fossil fuel emissions have comparable magnitudes (each ~130–150 Mt yr −1 ) roughly twice that of the waste sector (~70–75 Mt yr −1 ) ( 4 , 101 ). Abatement technologies are available in each sector ( 102 ) and, with modest projected improvements over time, could provide reductions of 29–62 Mt yr −1 in the oil and gas subsectors together, 12–25 Mt yr −1 in the coal subsector, 29–36 Mt yr −1 in the waste sector, and 6–9 Mt yr −1 from rice cultivation in 2030 ( 4 , 90 ). Estimated abatement for livestock ranges from 4–42 Mt yr −1 , depending upon factors such as the assumed potential to adopt higher productivity breeds and/or reduce total animal numbers. Technical abatement could be enhanced with nascent technologies such as methane inhibitors for ruminants, cultured and alternative proteins, and, in the waste sector, biocovers, black soldier flies, and waste-to-plastic substitute systems.

Many technological abatement options capture concentrated flows of methane, allowing it to be used as natural gas, generating revenue that lowers net costs. Defining low-cost as <US$600 per tonne of methane (in 2018 US$), low-cost abatement potentials represent 60–98% of the total for oil/gas, 55–98% for coal, and ~30–60% for waste ( 4 , 89 ). Technical options with net negative costs could reduce total emissions by ~40 Mt yr −1 , with the greatest potential being in the oil/gas and waste sectors ( 4 ).

Systemic and behavioral choices, such as fuel switching and demand management, also affect methane emissions and are particularly important in the food sector. Cattle account for about 70% of livestock emissions, with ~25% from regions with high reliance on intensive systems (primarily Europe and North America) most suitable for technical solutions ( 15 ). In other areas, extensive grazing systems are common, limiting technical solutions ( 61 ). For sizeable reductions in livestock emissions, cuts in animal stocks will therefore be necessary. Shifts to more plant-based diets could bring health benefits in regions with high intake of animal protein ( 103 , 104 ), and, as discussed above, this is important for providing areas for CDR deployment. Such shifts could reduce methane emissions by ~15–30 Mt yr −1 over the coming ~10–25 years ( 4 ). In regions with low protein intake but large cattle herds, productivity should be increased in conjunction with enhancement of the economic resilience of pastoralist communities ( 105 ). The latter requires improved access to affordable healthcare, education, and credit markets to enable management of financial risks without reliance on large livestock herds.

Achieving ~40–50% reductions in food loss and waste could reduce ~20 Mt yr −1 of methane emissions ( 4 ). Systemic and behavioral changes, such as dietary shifts and reduced food loss/waste (DFLW), are often difficult to implement but are benefiting from growing attention. Together, these could substantially augment the 120 Mt yr −1 achievable through targeted technical controls ( 13 , 62 , 106 ). Similarly, the IPCC assessment indicates a mitigation potential from DFLW for all GHGs of about 7 (3–15; full range) GtCO 2 e yr −1 by 2050, of which 1.9 GtCO 2 e yr −1 comes from direct emissions [largely non-CO 2 ( 6 )]. The latter would correspond to ~70 Mt yr −1 methane were it all methane, highlighting the large mitigation potential from DFLW both via methane and via associated land use changes.

National mitigation options: abatement potential and cost-effectiveness by country

The GMP has raised ambition worldwide but achieving its goal requires optimizing efforts, as political and financial capital is limited and time is short. We have therefore undertaken national-level analyses (Analyses G–H) of technical mitigation options for countries seeking to implement the Pledge or non-signatories that may want to reduce their emissions (e.g., China published a National Methane Emissions Control Action Plan in 2023). These analyses may also help optimize international financing. They are based on data from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ( 16 ) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) ( 90 ).

Mitigation options with greatest abatement potential by country

Analyses of technological mitigation potential highlight the need to address all subsectors given that each is the largest in at least some countries (Analysis G; Figure 7 ). In some fossil-fuel-producing countries, the greatest opportunities for methane mitigation are in gas and oil whereas coal predominates in other countries. Despite substantial fossil fuel industries, several countries in the Middle East, Southern Africa, and South America are estimated to have their largest mitigation potential in landfills. With few fossil fuels produced outside Eastern Europe and limited technical mitigation potential for livestock, the largest potential for mitigation in Europe is also often in landfills. There are notable exceptions, however. In France, Germany, and the Nordic countries, for example, policies have greatly mitigated waste sector emission, and the livestock subsector now has the largest remaining mitigation potential. This illustrates how national-level data reveal substantial variations even within relatively small geographic regions.

Figure 7 The subsector with the largest technical mitigation potential in every country. The map shows the subsector with the greatest mitigation potential regardless of the cost in each country based on United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data ( 16 ). See Methods (Analysis G) for further details.

This analysis is based on bottom-up emission estimates relying on activity data combined with emission factors. This is the most detailed emission information available by subsector for all countries. However, this approach has uncertainties and limitations. Recent developments in satellite remote sensing have shown the existence of so-called “super-emitters” ( 48 , 49 , 107 ). These are facilities emitting enormous amounts of methane, often related to abnormal operating conditions such as gas well blowouts ( 108 ) or non-burning flares. Hundreds of super-emitters are detectable globally, with even more at local scales [e.g., ( 47 )]. Many super-emitters can be considered “low-hanging fruit” since they are especially cost-effective to mitigate and have high reduction potential per individual source, making them a high-priority category to address. However, they are often not well represented in bottom-up inventories and do not necessarily follow the prioritization per country suggested by the bottom-up analysis ( Figure 7 ). For example, satellite-based studies show emissions from super-emitters from the oil and gas industry in Algeria of ~100 kt CH 4 yr −1 ( 48 , 49 ), a substantial fraction of the estimated mitigation potential not including super-emitters ( Figure 8A ). Super-emitters have also been reported in the coal subsector in Australia, China, and the United States ( 108 – 110 ). Urban areas are also important emission sources that can be difficult to capture in inventories with >13 urban methane hotspots detected in India ( 49 ) and evidence of worldwide urban wastewater emissions hotspots ( 111 ). Based on high-resolution satellite observations, individual landfills in New Delhi and Mumbai were estimated to emit 23 (14–33) and 86 (53–228) kt CH 4 yr −1 ( 112 ), a large fraction of total emissions from their respective urban areas.

Figure 8 Favorable countries for mitigation of methane from the oil and gas subsector. Estimated methane mitigation potential and costs within the oil and gas subsector for the 15 countries with the greatest mitigation potential in this subsector regardless of costs. Analyses based on data from (A) the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 2030 ( 16 ) and (B) the International Energy Agency (IEA) for 2022 ( 90 ). See Methods (Analysis H) for further details.

Mitigation potential and cost-effectiveness by sector and country

To explore cost-effectiveness, we focus on the 50 countries with the largest subsector mitigation potential in the next decade and then rank those by abatement costs (Analysis H). This excludes the agricultural sector due to the limited potential for technical solutions to achieve sizable reductions in the short term. Although this analysis highlights the nations with the largest mitigation potentials at the least average cost, costs vary within each subsector. We therefore created an online tool to explore such details ( https://github.com/psadavarte/Methane_mitigation_webtool ). Mitigation options are grouped into functionally similar categories to facilitate readability and allow comparison across estimates ( Table 1 ).

Table 1 Technical mitigation options included in each category.

For landfills, the 15 most cost-effective large reductions total >6 Mt yr −1 , and all have net negative costs ( Figure 9 ). These savings result from revenues provided by methane recovery for use offsite or energy generation. Within these two categories, net mitigation costs range from −US$800 to −US$4400 per tonne. The mitigation potential is always the largest in the energy generation category, hence savings outweigh expenses from flaring and oxidation (~US$120–US$330 per tonne in these countries) and waste treatment and recycling (US$400–US$1700 per tonne). Mitigation potentials are large for some countries with very large populations, such as India, Brazil, and Mexico, but also for several countries with smaller populations including Azerbaijan, Poland, Peru, and the United Arab Emirates. Note that the most cost-effective options do not always have the greatest mitigation potential (e.g., energy generation versus organics diversion).

Figure 9 Favorable countries for mitigation of methane from landfills. Estimated 2030 methane mitigation potential and costs within the landfill subsector for the 15 countries with the least expensive average costs that are also among the top 50 countries for mitigation potential in this sector. Analysis based on data from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ( 16 ). See Methods (Analysis H) for further details.

Estimating landfill mitigation potentials requires assumptions about waste diversion potentials that are difficult to constrain. For example, analyses by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) ( 15 ) for India and China find mitigation potentials ~3.5 times larger than EPA values ( Table 2 ). In contrast, the IIASA mitigation potential for the former Soviet Union countries is smaller. Differences are related to IIASA using both population and economic growth as drivers for waste generation (EPA uses population growth only) and IIASA finding a larger mitigation potential from diversion of organic waste through recycling and energy recovery than in the EPA analysis. National-level analyses have substantially larger ranges in estimated mitigation potentials than the global totals—which are similar to the EPA and IIASA analyses. Cost differences between these analyses are even more striking ( Table 2 ) and reflect differences in the assumed value of recycled products recovered from municipal waste and discount rates (5% for EPA, 4% for IIASA). A small number of very expensive controls in the EPA analysis also have an outsized impact. For example, screening out options costing >US$600 tCH 4 −1 reduces the cost averaged over the remaining measures to −US$2700 tCH 4 −1 for India, closer to the IIASA results.

Table 2 Comparison of national data for India and China across available analyses.

For coal, nearly all the most cost-effective large national reductions have positive average costs, though they are low at <US$600 tCH 4 −1 for the top 15 nations ( Figure 10 ; Table 2 ). Mitigation potential in coal within China provides over half the global total for the subsector in all analyses, but the EPA mitigation potential is more than double the IIASA’s, with the IEA being in between ( Table 2 ). The EPA analysis has larger baseline methane emissions from coal in China: 26 Mt yr −1 in 2020 versus 20 and 21 Mt yr −1 in the IIASA and IEA analyses, respectively (2030 values are similar). The lower values are closer to recent satellite inversion estimates of ~16–18 Mt yr −1 ( 113 ). IIASA also makes more conservative assumptions than EPA regarding the fraction of ventilation air methane (VAM) shafts with CH 4 concentration levels high enough (>0.3%) to install self-sustained VAM oxidizers. Cost estimates for China are similar between EPA and IIASA, with the IEA’s being lower. In contrast, the three estimates for coal mitigation potential in India are very similar, but cost estimates differ greatly ( Table 2 ). IIASA’s high costs for India reflect the low VAM concentration there (<0.1%), severely limiting the applicability of oxidizers. Furthermore, abatement potentials in India are similar in magnitude but represent very different percentages of the baseline emissions, with the EPA estimate being roughly one-third that of the other analyses.

Figure 10 Favorable countries for mitigation of methane from the coal subsector. Estimated methane mitigation potential and costs within the coal subsector for the 14 countries with the least expensive average costs that are also among the top 50 countries for mitigation potential in this subsector. Analysis based on data from (A) the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 2030 ( 16 ) and (B) the International Energy Agency (IEA) for 2022 ( 90 ). Note that China is also among the top 15 countries in both analyses but has a mitigation potential of >12,000 kt yr −1 ( Table 2 ), far beyond the scales shown here. See Methods (Analysis H) for further details.

Generally, the EPA estimates lower costs than the IEA, but many countries have similar abatement potentials, including Russia, India, and the United States ( Figure 10 ). In other cases, they estimate extremely different mitigation potentials, for example, in Indonesia and Australia. Differences result from multiple factors, including limited data on base costs and emissions levels, reference years, and technical and economic assumptions. For example, the contrast for Indonesia reflects differences in estimated baseline levels of emission, with the EPA indicating a much lower volume. This may be related to differences in the reference year, with the IEA estimate being more recent and reflecting higher coal activity in Indonesia. Additionally, the EPA uses lower IPCC default emission factors and country-level reporting data to estimate coal mine methane emissions, whereas the IEA considers coal rank, mine depth, satellite measurements, and regulatory frameworks. Finally, the energy production category typically has lower costs than the subsector average, and often net negative costs, whereas the disposal category does not generate revenue and so has higher costs. The latter is typically the largest component in the EPA analysis whereas the former tends to be the largest in the IEA analysis ( Figure 10 ).

Oil and gas

Oil and gas data are available for most countries from the EPA and the IEA. We focus on the 15 countries with the largest potentials regardless of cost because these are similar sets of countries, whereas the most cost-effective within the top 50 differ greatly in these analyses. The comparison shows that 8 countries are among the top 15 by mitigation potential in both analyses, yet these differ markedly in mitigation potentials and especially in mitigation costs ( Figure 8 ). For example, both analyses show the largest abatement potentials in the United States, followed by Russia. However, the potentials estimated by IEA are 40–50% larger than the EPA estimates, while the costs are four-fold lower for the United States and 40-fold lower for Russia. Mitigation potentials diverge even more in other countries. For instance, for Turkmenistan, the IEA finds the potential to mitigate 77% of 4700 kt yr −1 whereas the EPA finds a mitigation potential that is 37% of 1800 kt yr −1 . The IEA analysis, incorporating satellite-based emissions estimates, typically estimates higher current emissions than the EPA which relies upon national reporting, accounting for the larger IEA values in several countries. However, for Uzbekistan and Russia, the IEA base emissions are much lower, at 670 and 13,600 kt yr −1 , respectively, versus 3000 and 24,800 kt yr −1 in the EPA analysis (Russian official reporting was revised downward since the EPA analysis).

Differences between cost estimates are more systematic across countries, with the IEA consistently much lower than EPA. Differences are linked to several factors, including the inclusion of “super-emitters” by the IEA, a scarcity of data on required capital and operational expenditures, and varying revenue assumptions and typical lifetimes for abatement measures (the EPA uses a 5% discount rate and the IEA 10%, which would generally lead to relatively lower costs for the EPA). For example, the EPA estimates incorporate uniform natural gas prices across segments, whereas the IEA has different prices for upstream and downstream segments. Mitigation measures also vary, with each having specific costs, revenue, and lifetime in both analyses.

For both gas and oil, IIASA analyses show much smaller mitigation potential for India than either the EPA or IEA analyses, whereas for China, the IIASA estimates lie between EPA and IEA values ( Table 2 ). For both countries, mitigation potentials vary by 300% to 600% across the three datasets for gas, oil, or oil plus gas—much larger than the 16% to 150% variations for coal. Turning to costs, IIASA analyses for gas and oil in India and China find large net revenues, whereas the IEA finds smaller revenues and EPA large net expenditures ( Table 2 ). IIASA’s lower costs are attributable to the lower discount rate (4%) that increases the value of future revenue from captured gas, as well as projecting increases in the value of future gas based on the IEA New Policies Scenario (whereas the IEA, for example, uses present-day prices as they examine immediate abatement).

The social cost of methane

The social cost of methane (SCM), monetizing climate change-related damages, has recently been reevaluated ( 114 ) based on results from three damage estimation models ( 115 – 117 ). Incorporating only the impacts of climate change, the SCM ranges from US$470–US$1700 tCH 4 −1 for 2020 across these models using 2.5% discounting (values in 2020 US$). The spread narrows greatly over time to US$1100–US$2300 in 2030 and US$2700–US$3700 in 2050. This indicates that the models differ greatly in their near-term climate damage while converging in their valuation of longer-term impact. The 2030 SCM is 8–15 times larger than the social cost of CO 2 in 2030 (with 2.5% discounting) using these models, a “global damage potential” much lower than metrics of 30 (GWP100) or 83 (GWP20) typically used to compare these gases. Using one of those same damage estimate models, as well as others, higher 2020 values were recently reported: US$2900 tCH 4 −1 for models using a stochastic rather than fixed discount rate by otherwise standard methods applying economic damage to current output and US$75,600 tCH 4 −1 using models applying damage to long-term economic growth which then compound over time ( 118 ). The latter not only dramatically boosts social costs but also global damage potential, which rises from 21 to 44 in their analysis.

These types of evaluations have inherent inconsistencies, however. They include the effects of methane-induced ozone changes on climate but not health. However, there is a robust evidence base for ozone-health impacts via methane photochemistry ( 4 , 77 , 78 , 119 – 121 ). Similarly, SCM estimates include the effects of climate and CO 2 exposure on ecosystems, including agriculture, but not ozone exposure ( 78 , 122 ). Several studies have evaluated the SCM accounting consistently for ozone damage. Based on adults-only health impacts with relatively weak ozone effects on cardiovascular-related deaths and incorporating climate-only valuations without compounding growth effects, they find substantially larger values of ~US$4300–US$4400 tCH 4 −1 for 2020 ( 4 , 78 ). Using both stronger cardiovascular impacts and impacts on children under 5 (Analysis E), those values rise to ~US$7000 tCH 4 −1 . Using either those values or the values incorporating economic growth impacts ( 118 ), virtually all current methane abatement options cost much less than the associated environmental damages.

Economic considerations, including profit versus abatement in oil production

Given that many low-cost controls are available, the imposition of even a modest price on methane emissions would incentivize some emission reductions and overcome implementation barriers based on marginal costs alone ( 3 ). Several examples of methane pricing exist: auctions under California’s emissions trading system in 2022 yielded prices of ~US$725 tCH 4 −1 ( 123 ), Norway has a US$1500 tCH 4 −1 fee on oil and gas operators, and the 2022 US Inflation Reduction Act sets a price on excess methane emissions from oil and gas of US$900 tCH 4 −1 in 2024, rising to US$1500 tCH 4 −1 after 2025. Under these types of pricing regimes, average abatement costs in most priority countries would become negative for coal ( Figure 10 ) and oil and gas ( Figure 8 ). Similarly, an International Monetary Fund (IMF) analysis recommends a rising price on methane reaching ~US$2100 tCH 4 −1 in 2030 to align emissions with the 2°C goal ( 124 ). A methane fee might be set to a politically practical value, the value needed to achieve a desired reduction (as in the IMF analysis), or the value of associated environmental damages (the SCM).

Economic analyses from a societal perspective, i.e., how a mitigation measure incurs costs and benefits for both public and private stakeholders (including long-term impacts on future generations), can help policymakers define emission reduction targets that aim to optimize welfare ( 125 ). Private-sector decision-makers have a different perspective, with higher discount rates and shorter return times on investments; mitigation measures generating net profits may sometimes be outcompeted by production activities generating even higher profits since capital is limited. The profit-maximizing investor will weigh the relative profits of possible investments and choose the one with the highest return, leaving investment opportunities with lower profits unfunded. Even mitigation costs without consideration of environmental impacts, as discussed here, can be misleading about private sector decision-making. For example, despite recent increases in gas prices resulting in increased profits from gas recovery during oil production, industry incentives to invest in this have weakened because the profit margin from oil production has increased more rapidly than that from extended gas recovery owing to an increasing spread between oil and gas prices.

To illustrate this, we compare returns from methane controls during oil production, such as the recovery of associated gas for reinjection or utilization and leak detection and repair programs, for two cases denoted “Jan 2020” and “July 2022” (Analysis I). These correspond approximately to global oil and gas markets in those months with historic lows and highs, respectively ( Table 3 ). When oil and gas prices are low, the two profit margins can overlap without a methane fee ( Figure 11 ). Under such conditions, methane recovery investments can be as or more profitable than investments in increased oil production. We then expect some voluntary investments into methane control without the introduction of legally binding regulations. As oil and gas prices climb to the July 2022 levels, the profit margin of increasing oil production quickly outpaces that of methane control without a fee. In an illustrative example of a US$1500 tonne −1 fee on methane, as in the US and Norway, methane abatement becomes generally more profitable than oil production with low prices, though this fee is sufficient to make only some abatement as profitable as production with high prices ( Figure 11 ).

Table 3 Assumptions for the two fictive, illustrative cases “Jan 2020” and “July 2022”.

Figure 11 Variation in profit margins for oil production and methane abatement as fossil fuel prices change. Ranges for profit margins of oil production and methane abatement are shown for two illustrative cases “Jan 2020” and “July 2022” that correspond to historically low and high oil and gas prices, respectively (see Table 3 for assumptions). Profit margins for methane abatement are shown without a fee on emissions and with a US$1500 per tonne illustrative methane fee. See Methods (Analysis I) for further details.

This analysis helps explain the behavior of real-world markets, e.g., “Methane emissions remained stubbornly high in 2022 even as soaring energy prices made actions to reduce them cheaper than ever” ( 126 ). Profit-maximizing oil companies have a greater incentive to spend capital on increased production rather than voluntarily investing in methane control when prices are high, even though profits from such actions have increased. In such cases, oil companies can only be expected to invest in methane control if forced to do so through legally binding regulations. While actions to control methane from the fossil fuel sector entail substantial costs, the industry has ample resources compared with sectors such as waste or agriculture. For example, the IEA estimates that reducing energy-related methane emissions by 75% would require spending through 2030, which is <5% of the industry’s net 2023 income ( 127 ).

To reach abatement targets through private sector investments, policymakers need to ensure regulations are strong enough to overcome any competitive disadvantage of abatement investments relative to other operational investments. That measures are cost-effective from a societal perspective is no guarantee that abatement will happen without the introduction of additional regulations and policy incentives, such as requirements to use the best available technologies or a methane fee high enough to make abatement gains comparable to those available from new-source development from a private perspective ( Figure 11 ). The imperatives to both reduce methane rapidly this decade and transition to net zero CO 2 by the middle of the century imply that societies should consider granting companies social licenses to operate only if they are on course to both very low methane intensity by 2030 (including no routine venting or flaring) and to net zero CO 2 by 2050.

Conclusions and next steps

The GMP has created enormous policy momentum. Alongside it, the Global Methane Hub ( https://globalmethanehub.org/ ) links ~20 philanthropic organizations’ supporting action, and the CCAC links development banks with mitigation implementers. As such, there is an urgent need for expanded and improved knowledge of both the benefits of and opportunities for mitigation and access to finance to support the effective implementation of mitigation policies. This information can be provided with support tools that keep pace with rapidly advancing knowledge regarding current emission sources, especially via remote sensing.

Our analyses support three imperatives for methane mitigation. We illustrate how observations show increased methane concentration growth rates, which have recently reached the greatest values on record according to both ground-based and satellite data. Observed methane growth rates are now much higher than the mean predictions across models and far above levels consistent with Paris Climate Agreement goals. Human activities are predominantly responsible for the past ~15 years of growth—with contributions from increased emissions from wetlands due to anthropogenic global warming and from direct anthropogenic emissions. The first imperative is therefore to change course and reverse methane emission growth through stronger policy-led action targeting all major drivers of methane emissions as well as to greatly reduce CO 2 emissions rapidly.

The second imperative is to align methane and CO 2 mitigation. Major and rapid reductions in methane are integral to least-cost 1.5°C- and 2°C-consistent scenarios alongside the transformations needed to reach net zero CO 2 by ~2050. However, net zero methane emissions is not the target owing to abatement challenges for some sources and its short lifetime. Nevertheless, since methane and CO 2 each contribute to warming, maximizing reductions in methane emissions is important both for its own sake to ensure that 1.5°C- or 2°C-consistent CO 2 trajectories are feasible and to reduce CDR requirements. Methane and CO 2 mitigation actions are tightly interrelated: reducing methane emissions can directly contribute to reduced atmospheric CO 2 via carbon cycle interactions. Focusing on land use, we quantify how decreased livestock numbers afforded by reduced consumption of cattle-based foods not only help reduce methane emissions but also free up land to help meet projected needs for CDR at levels required to achieve long-term climate goals. Rapid and deep cuts to CO 2 and methane provide the strongest climate benefits across the century.

The third imperative highlights the need to optimize methane abatement policies. We show that both technological abatement options and systemic and behavioral choices must be addressed to reduce methane emissions. Our national-level analysis of methane mitigation opportunities highlights the need to address all subsectors when considering abatement options. We find that although many mitigation costs are low relative to real-world financial instruments and methane damage estimates, strong, legally binding regulations need to be in place even in the case of negative-cost options. To help policymakers and project funders, we created an online tool that explores different options and their cost-effectiveness. This tool supports policymakers by, for example, displaying (i) the most cost-effective options for countries to achieve a desired methane abatement objective economy-wide by sector or by subsector and (ii) the options in each country or countries that provide the largest abatement opportunities for a given spending level. Given substantial uncertainties in both emissions and costs, these data provide guidance for funders or policymakers who can then pursue more detailed studies. Funding equivalent to mitigation costs is not necessarily required since the cost analyses could support regulatory policies, e.g., by showing that they do not impose onerous burdens. For example, mitigation in the fossil sector is both large and low in cost in China and India, as are reductions in landfill methane in India, suggesting these two non-GMP countries have the potential to achieve major methane reductions with limited financial burdens.

The tool provides abatement potentials both as tonnes and percentages. The latter facilitates use with observations, for example, the identification of emission sources by satellites with global coverage but relatively low spatial resolution that are followed up by higher resolution site-specific quantification of emission rates ( Figure 12 ). These data will soon be complemented by the satellite missions Carbon Mapper, MethaneSAT, GOSAT-GW, Sentinel-5, and Satlantis as well as datasets produced by the Integrated Global Greenhouse Gas Information System and the International Methane Emissions Observatory. Automated reporting based on satellite observations promises to provide rapid information on emissions and progress in abatement [e.g., ( 49 ), ( 107 )] though updates to mitigation potentials and costs based on new data will take considerable time and effort.

Figure 12 Example use of remote sensing to quantify methane emissions. (A) Methane observations from the TROPOMI instrument on 31 March 2019 over the region encompassing Lahore, Pakistan. (B) High-resolution measurement of methane enhancement over the northern part of the city observed by GHGSat on 31 October 2020. The emission source location matches the siting of the Lahore landfill, with Q indicating the estimated methane emission rate.

The new tool complements another showing the benefits of methane abatement ( http://shindellgroup.rc.duke.edu/apps/methane/ ). That tool allows the user to select global or regional methane mitigation options by sector and cost and then displays national-level benefits including ozone effects on human health, yields for several major staple crops, heat-related labor productivity, and the economic valuation of these.

Though methane has similar environmental impacts wherever it is emitted, co-emissions affect those living near sources with environmental justice implications [e.g., ( 128 , 129 )]. These include hazardous hydrocarbons, such as benzene, that are frequently emitted by gas and oil facilities, black carbon from flaring, and ammonia from manure ponds. Methane-producing infrastructure is often in areas with high social vulnerability [e.g., ( 130 )]. Accounting for co-emissions requires improved data on their spatial distribution and volume, especially in areas with nearby vulnerable populations.

There is also a need to improve understanding of several physical processes influencing the climate impacts of methane emissions. Methane-induced ozone increases affect the carbon cycle, amplifying the climate impact of methane, but the magnitude of this effect is highly uncertain ( 12 ). Additionally, methane affects particle formation via oxidants, producing aerosol-cloud interactions that may augment the climate impact of methane ( 131 ). Studies also report divergent results for the net cloud response to methane when the shortwave absorption of methane is accounted for ( 132 , 133 ). A better understanding of the response of natural methane emissions to climate change is also needed. Improved capabilities to monitor emissions from difficult-to-access methane-source areas (e.g., wetlands) using remote sensing should help constrain changes in natural sources over the coming decade. A research agenda for methane removal technologies, which could be deployed in the unlikely event of a surge in natural emissions, has been called for [e.g., ( 134 )] and is currently being assessed ( https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/atmospheric-methane-removal-development-of-a-research-agenda ).

Though additional observations and improved scientific understanding will be valuable, securing the benefits for climate, health, labor productivity, and crops ( 4 , 79 ) that are the rationale for the GMP requires immediate implementation to achieve the emission reductions envisioned by 2030. Not only is our understanding of methane science and mitigation options sufficient to act upon, but political support is evidenced by the GMP, and financial support is growing. It is also becoming clearer how methane fees would achieve climate goals and enhance well-being. In the face of ever-increasing climate damages, including heat waves, flooding, storms, and fires, the world has a real opportunity to reduce the rate at which these effects grow between now and 2050 via methane action, with the main impediment being the will to implement the known solutions.

Analysis A: methane growth/emissions vs projections

Methane abundance growth rates during the 2020s are taken from “no climate policy” baseline scenarios from several recent multi-model intercomparison projects using integrated assessment models: ADVANCE ( https://www.fp7-advance.eu/ ), NAVIGATE ( https://www.navigate-h2020.eu/ ) ( 14 ), and ENGAGE ( https://www.engage-climate.org/ ). NAVIGATE and ENGAGE scenarios are the most recent and include updates to actual trends in energy demand, costs, etc., and legislation through ~2020. This dataset includes results from the following IAMs: AIM/CGE 2.0, IMAGE (versions 3.0.1, 3.0.2, and 3.2), MESSAGE-GLOBIOM 1.0, MESSAGEix-GLOBIOM 1.1, POLES, REMIND 1.7, REMIND-MAgPIE (versions 1.5, 2.0–4.1, and 2.1–4.2), WITCH 5.0, and WITCH- GLOBIOM 4.2.

Baseline projections are also included from two “bottom-up” analyses by the International Institute for IIASA ( 15 ) and the EPA ( 16 ). The IIASA analysis uses their Greenhouse gas and Air pollution Interactions and Synergies (GAINS) model in which baseline emission estimates reflect expected impacts on emissions from current legislation to control emissions. Future methane emissions in GAINS by 2050 are developed based on macroeconomic and energy sector activity drivers from the IEA World Energy Outlook 2018 New Policies Scenario ( 135 ), agricultural sector activity drivers from the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) ( 136 ), and IIASA’s own projections of solid waste and wastewater generation consistent with their relevant macroeconomic drivers. By incorporating policies projected forward by the IEA in 2018 in the energy scenario, these projections are expected to be similar to the NAVIGATE and ENGAGE baselines. The EPA’s projections are based on projected changes in underlying drivers taken from various globally available activity data sources depending on the source category. Trends in energy production and consumption are based on the United States Energy Information Administration 2017 International Energy Outlook Reference Case scenario. Growth rates in crop and livestock production are from International Food Policy Research Institute’s IMPACT model (International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade) ( 137 ). The full methodology is discussed in the documentation accompanying the EPA’s Global non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emission projections & mitigation report ( 16 ). Neither the integrated assessment models nor the bottom-up analyses include changes in natural methane emissions.

A simple box model with a sink proportional to the atmospheric abundance of methane is used both to derive emission and sink estimates ( Figure 1 ) and to convert scenario emissions to estimated concentration changes ( Figure 2 ). The atmospheric residence time for methane is 9.1 years for 2020 methane concentrations in this model, consistent with the value reported in the IPCC AR6 ( 12 ).

Analysis B: projected methane emissions reductions under 1.5°C-consistent scenarios

This analysis utilizes the scenario dataset analyzed in the IPCC AR6 ( 59 ). We include all scenarios classified as being below 1.5°C in 2100 (>50% probability) with either no or limited overshoot and for which agricultural as well as total methane emissions were available. There are 53 scenarios from eight models that represent five separate model families: AIM/CGE 2.2 and AIM/Hub-Global 2.0; IMAGE 3.2; MESSAGE-GLOBIOM 1.1; REMIND 2.1, REMIND-MAgPIE 2.1–4.2 and 2.1–4.3; and WITCH 5.0. Data were obtained from the AR6 Scenario Database ( 86 ), release 1.1.

Analysis C: connection between land area use for BECCS and pasture

This analysis utilizes two sets of scenarios from the AR6 scenario database ( 86 ). We examine the relationship between the deployment of BECCS and the area used for pasture (area used for fodder was not available) using scenarios classified as keeping warming below 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot as well as those keeping warming below 1.5°C with high overshoot. The latter are included to obtain a larger sample of models given substantial intermodal variability in estimates of future BECCS deployment. Results are available from seven model families: AIM, GCAM, IMAGE, MESSAGE, REMIND, COFFEE, and WITCH. From these scenarios, we also analyze decadal changes in the multi-model means and individual scenarios for these two quantities from the 2040s (or 2030s) to 2090s.

A second set of scenarios is used to explore how land use trade-offs including land area used for afforestation vary across IAMs. We use an expanded set of scenarios classified as under 2°C as afforestation diagnostics were not available from as many models. Even using this larger dataset, we found only eight models that provided all the required outputs. As this analysis compares land used for carbon uptake (afforestation and bioenergy crops) with pasture area across multiple scenarios within a single model, we excluded three models that had six or fewer scenarios. One additional model, a variant of REMIND, has minimal changes in land deployed for carbon uptake so does not provide useful input for this analysis (though averages and ranges are not sensitive to the inclusion of that model). For the remaining four models (IMAGE 3.2, MESSAGEix-GLOBIOM 1.1, REMIND-MAgPIE 1.7–3.0, and WITCH 5.0), 22–106 scenarios were available (206 in total), allowing a robust characterization of the land use relationship for each of these models. In this analysis, afforestation is converted from the reported value in tCO 2 to area using 12 tCO 2 per ha ( 138 ).

Analysis D: climate impact of decarbonization and methane reduction

We analyzed the response of global mean annual average surface air temperatures to emissions under various scenarios to isolate the effects of decarbonization and targeted methane emission controls. The emissions scenarios are based upon the SSPs, using averages across 1.5°C scenarios (nominal 1.9 W m −2 forcing in 2100) under SSPs 1, 2, and 5 as 1.5°C was infeasible under SSP3 in four of four models and under SSP4 in two of three models. From those scenarios, we separate the effects of decarbonization from targeted methane abatement based on the methane abatement associated with decreasing fossil fuel use ( 4 , 82 , 95 ), which is classified as part of decarbonization, relative to all other methane reductions, which includes the remaining portion of fossil fuel-sector methane abatement and all methane abatement in the agriculture and waste sectors.

Temperature responses to those emissions relative to constant 2020 emissions were calculated using absolute global temperature potentials (AGTPs), as in prior work ( 4 , 66 , 78 ). The yearly AGTPs represent the global mean temperature change per kilogram of emission each year after those emissions based on an impulse-response function for the climate system, as is used in IPCC reports for selected example years, e.g., AGTP50 or AGTP100 ( 69 ). This analysis relies on AGTPs created using the transient climate response averaged over the last generation of climate models (CMIP5) ( 139 ), which is very similar to that reported from the latest generation ( 63 ). The response to methane is calibrated to match the global mean annual average temperature response from the full composition-climate models reported in the Global Methane Assessment’s climate simulations ( 4 ).

Analysis E: impact of methane abatement on temperature and health

This analysis presents global mean annual average temperature responses using the same methodology as Analysis D but in this case applied to scenarios based upon baseline and 1.5°C-consistent scenarios under the SSP2 pathway. SSP2 is chosen as it lies in the middle of the three for which models produced several 1.5°C consistent scenarios (SSPs 1, 2, and 5), consistent with its “middle-of-the-road” narrative description ( 96 ).

This analysis also presents health impacts based on changes in exposure to surface ozone. The GMA used five global composition-climate models to evaluate the effect of methane emissions on the maximum daily 8-hour ozone exposure averaged over the year (MDA8-annual). This was the metric most closely linked to increases in premature deaths from ozone in one of the largest epidemiological studies to date ( 140 ) as well as in a second large United States study that obtained very similar exposure-response results ( 141 ). This analysis utilizes the multi-model mean changes in this metric per unit methane emission change to derive the effect on human health due to reduced risk of both respiratory and cardiovascular premature mortality with decreasing ozone exposure.

We note that groups such as the EPA and Global Burden of Disease (GBD) do not include ozone-related cardiovascular premature deaths—the EPA’s expert panel reports that “evidence for long-term ozone exposure and cardiovascular effects is suggestive of, but insufficient to infer, a causal relationship” ( 142 ). However, a recent cohort study in China ( 143 ) reports a strong relationship and a much higher risk increment per unit exposure than that used here based on the United States studies. To characterize the range of potential methane-ozone-health impacts, we also evaluated the maximum daily 8-hour ozone exposure averaged over the 6-month period of maximum exposures (MDA8–6mon), the metric used in the Chinese epidemiological analysis. We apply the exposure–response relationship for cardiovascular disease of Niu et al. ( 143 ) using the same theoretical minimum risk exposure level (a threshold) as in the United States study [26.7 ppb ( 140 )], as this value is below any exposures in Niu et al. The results are only modestly sensitive to the use of this threshold, however, with values ~20% less without the threshold, well within uncertainty ranges. We find 1930 [1110–2510: 95% confidence interval (CI)] deaths per Mt methane emission based on the exposure-response of Niu et al. ( 143 ), a best estimate value much larger than even the high end of the 690 (210–1120: 95% CI) deaths per MtCH 4 found using the Turner et al. ( 140 ) relationship ( 4 ). Note that another large Chinese cohort study ( 144 ) reported more than double the increased risk of cardiovascular death due to increased ozone exposure relative to Niu et al. ( 143 ), suggesting that even our high-end estimate could be substantially too small.

In addition to the differing estimates of the effect of ozone on premature cardiovascular deaths, another recent analysis reports a strong relationship between ozone exposure and increased premature death in children aged under 5 years in low- and middle-income countries ( 145 ). Such an effect would be distinct from other effects analyzed here as the other studies included only populations aged 18 and older ( 143 ) or 30 and older ( 140 ). The impacts on children aged 0 to 5 were reported in response to MDA8–6mon, and we used this metric to again evaluate the effects of changing methane emissions for ozone exposures above 51 ppb, as reported in the epidemiological study. We find an additional 320 (125–485: 95% CI) premature deaths in children under 5.

Combining the 740 (460–990) adult respiratory deaths ( 4 ) with the adult cardiovascular deaths found here based on the Chinese cohort ( 143 ) and the under-5 age group deaths gives a total value of 3000 (2100–3600) per MtCH 4 . Using standard valuation methods ( 4 ), this leads to a valuation of US$5200 (3650–6250) per tCH 4 .

Human health impacts were calculated using 2015 population data from the Gridded Population of the World (GPW) version 4 ( 146 ) and 2015 baseline mortality rates from the GBD project ( 147 ) for each country of the world.

Analysis F: impact of methane abatement on heavy/outdoor labor

We assess the effects of changes in heat exposure due to mitigation of methane emissions on potential labor productivity within the heavy labor category, which primarily includes outdoor workers in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and construction ( 100 ). The effects of methane abatement are evaluated relative to a “middle-of-the-road” SSP2 scenario, as in Analysis E. Uncertainties are characterized using multiple impact functions, namely those of Kjellstrom et al. ( 148 ), Foster et al. ( 149 ), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 7243 ( 150 ), using the approach of Bröde et al. ( 151 ). Analyses are performed for both the case of workers in the sun and in the shade.

Valuation of the avoided labor losses uses estimates from the International Labour Organization (ILO) of the fraction of the overall working-age population (ages 15–64) in each country that works in heavy labor ( 152 ), multiplied by the spatially gridded population ages 15–64 [Gridded Population of the World v4 data ( 146 )] to estimate the number of workers in a given category and their spatial distribution. We then overlay the heavy labor hours lost by these workers to obtain total hours lost. We next calculate average value added per worker in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and construction by dividing the total value added in 2017 ( 153 ) by the total working-age employment in a given category. This is then converted to value per hour assuming a 12-hour workday and 365 days/year (a maximalist assumption, though common in the labor economics literature, so the value of hours lost reported here is conservative). We then multiply the hourly value added per worker by the heavy labor hours lost to estimate the economic costs of heat-related productivity losses. Finally, values are converted from 2017 local currency units (LCU) to 2017 PPP-adjusted international dollars (2017 PPP$) by dividing a country’s LCU by its gross domestic product 2017 PPP conversion rate (LCU/US$). We sum the losses over all countries (n=163) to obtain the estimated global output loss.

Analysis G and H: national-level methane mitigation analysis of abatement potentials and costs

National mitigation potentials and their associated costs are evaluated primarily based on the data from the EPA ( 16 ) and from the IEA ( 90 ). The EPA data cover all sectors and include projected changes in both baseline emissions and mitigation. Mitigation potentials change over time due to factors such as projected technology turnover and improvements in technology over time. Potentials are estimated through 2050 and use a discount rate of 5% in cost estimates (e.g., for the value of captured gas). The IEA analysis includes only the fossil fuel sector and analyzes present-day abatement potentials associated with targeted control measures. This analysis uses a discount rate of 10% in its cost estimates.

Limited national data are also included from an analysis by IIASA, though this analysis is primarily done at the regional level ( 15 ). As with the EPA analysis, these mitigation potentials and costs cover all sectors and include time-dependent estimates of both changes in baseline emissions and mitigation. The latter include sector-specific assumptions about technology turnover times, based on the literature, improvements in technology over time, and the achievable pace of regulations. This analysis includes discount rates of 4% and 10% in their cost evaluation and also extends to 2050. EPA and IIASA data are evaluated for 2030 whereas IEA estimates are for 2022.

As presented in the main text, abatement options have been grouped into functionally similar categories to facilitate readability and allow comparison across estimates. An online tool facilitating analysis of the national level EPA and IEA has been created that allows users to sort the available national abatement options by sector according to their costs. The user can specify either a mitigation target or a spending target and can also compare across the EPA and IEA datasets (within the fossil fuel sector) and countries. The tool is available at https://github.com/psadavarte/Methane_mitigation_webtool .

Analysis I: profit/return from controlling methane emissions versus price (oil production)

To examine the implications of price fluctuations on oil companies’ incentives to invest in methane abatement, we compared two fictive cases called “Jan 2020” and “July 2022”. These approximate the situations in the global oil and gas markets in January 2020, when the world oil and gas prices stood at a historical low at ~US$20/barrel for oil (Brent) and about ~US$10/MWh for gas (title transfer facility [TTF] spot price), and July 2022, when the same prices stood at a historic high at about US$120/barrel for oil and US$100/MWh for gas. Our analysis assumes that there are no appreciable changes in the costs of oil production or methane abatement, the impact factors (methane released per barrel) for oil-related methane emissions, or the effectiveness of methane abatement to isolate the effects of commodity price changes.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsci.2024.1349770/full#supplementary-material

Acknowledgments

We thank Katie Owens for analyses of AR6 scenarios and the Global Methane Hub for financial support.

Author contributions

DS: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft. PS: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. IA: Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. TB: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. GD: Writing – original draft. LH-I: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft. BP: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. MS: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. GS: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. SS: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. KR: Data curation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. LP: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. ZQ: Writing – review & editing. GF: Writing – review & editing, Formal Analysis. JM: Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material . Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was funded by the Global Methane Hub through Windward Fund Grant 016011-2022-01-01 and through the European Union FOCI program. The funders had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The reviewer FOC declared a past co-authorship with the author SS to the handling editor.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai AP, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, Caud N, et al, editors. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2021). doi: 10.1017/9781009157896

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Rosane P, Naran B, Ortega Pastor A, Conolly J, Wignarajah D. The landscape of methane abatement finance . Climate policy initiative (2022). Available at: https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/the-landscape-of-methane-abatement-finance/ .

Google Scholar

3. Olczak M, Piebalgs A, Balcombe P. A global review of methane policies reveals that only 13% of emissions are covered with unclear effectiveness. One Earth (2023) 6(5):519–35. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.04.009

4. United Nations Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air Coalition. Global Methane Assessment: Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions . Nairobi: UNEP (2021). Available at: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions .

5. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook (2021) Paris: IEA. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021/keeping-the-door-to-15–0c-open .

6. Shukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdajie R, van Diemen D, McCollum M, et al, editors. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2022). doi: 10.1017/9781009157926

7. Nisbet EG, Manning MR, Dlugokencky EJ, Fisher RE, Lowry D, Michel SE, et al. Very strong atmospheric methane growth in the 4 years 2014–2017: implications for the Paris Agreement. Global Biogeochem Cycles (2019) 33(3):318–42. doi: 10.1029/2018GB006009

8. Nisbet EG, Manning MR, Dlugokencky EJ, Michel SE, Lan X, Röckmann T, et al. Atmospheric methane: comparison between methane’s record in 2006–2022 and during glacial terminations. Global Biogeochem Cycles (2023) 37(8):e2023GB007875. doi: 10.1029/2023GB007875

9. Lan X, Thoning KW, Dlugokencky EJ. Trends in globally-averaged CH 4 , N 2 O, and SF 6 determined from NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory measurements. Version 2024–04. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Global Monitoring Laboratory (2022). doi: 10.15138/P8XG-AA10.

10. World Meteorological Organization. WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin No. 19 – 15 November 2023. The State of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Based on Global Observations through 2022 . Geneva: WMO (2023). Available at: https://library.wmo.int/idurl/4/68532 .

11. Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service. Greenhouse gas concentrations (2023). Available at: https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/greenhouse-gas-concentrations .

12. Szopa S, Naik V, Adhikary B, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Collins WD, et al. Short-lived climate forcers. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, et al, editors. Climate Change 2021: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2021) 817–922. doi: 10.1017/9781009157896.008

13. United Nations Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air Coalition. Global Methane Assessment 2030 Baseline Report . Nairobi: UNEP (2022), Available at: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-2030-baseline-report .

14. Harmsen M, Kriegler E, Van Vuuren DP, van der Wijst KI, Luderer G, Cui R, et al. Integrated assessment model diagnostics: key indicators and model evolution. Environ Res Lett (2021) 16(5):054046. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abf964

15. Höglund-Isaksson L, Gómez-Sanabria A, Klimont Z, Rafaj P, Schöpp W. Technical potentials and costs for reducing global anthropogenic methane emissions in the 2050 timeframe – results from the GAINS model. Environ Res Commun (2020) 2(2):025004, Available at: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ab7457 . doi: 10.1088/2515-7620/ab7457

16. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Global Non-CO 2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections & Mitigation [EPA-430-R-19-010] . Washington, DC: U.S. EPA (2019). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/documents/epa_non-co2_greenhouse_gases_rpt-epa430r19010.pdf .

17. Rogelj J, Shindell D, Jiang K, Fifita S, Forster P, Ginzburg V, et al. Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, et al, editors. Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2018) 93–174. doi: 10.1017/9781009157940.004

18. Jackson RB, Saunois M, Bousquet P, Canadell JG, Poulter B, Stavert AR, et al. Increasing anthropogenic methane emissions arise equally from agricultural and fossil fuel sources. Environ Res Lett (2020) 15(7):071002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab9ed2

19. Canadell JG, Monteiro PMS, Costa MH, Cotrim da Cunha L, Cox PM, Eliseev AV, et al. Global carbon and other biogeochemical cycles and feedbacks. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, et al, editors. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2021) 673–816. doi: 10.1017/9781009157896.007

20. Zhang Z, Poulter B, Knox S, Stavert A, McNicol G, Fluet-Chouinard E, et al. Anthropogenic emission is the main contributor to the rise of atmospheric methane during 1993–2017. Natl Sci Rev (2022) 9(5):nwab200. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwab200

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Thanwerdas J, Saunois M, Berchet A, Pison I, Bousquet P. Investigation of the renewed methane growth post-2007 with high-resolution 3-D variational inverse modeling and isotopic constraints. Atmos Chem Phys (2024) 24(4):2129–67. doi: 10.5194/acp-24-2129-2024

22. Yin Y, Chevallier F, Ciais P, Bousquet P, Saunois M, Zheng B, et al. Accelerating methane growth rate from 2010 to 2017: leading contributions from the tropics and East Asia. Atmos Chem Phys (2021) 21(16):12631–47. doi: 10.5194/acp-21-12631-2021

23. Feng L, Palmer PI, Zhu S, Parker RJ, Liu Y. Tropical methane emissions explain large fraction of recent changes in global atmospheric methane growth rate. Nat Commun (2022) 13(1):1378. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28989-z

24. Oh Y, Zhuang Q, Welp LR, Liu L, Lan X, Basu S, et al. Improved global wetland carbon isotopic signatures support post-2006 microbial methane emission increase. Commun Earth Environ (2022) 3(1):1–12. doi: 10.1038/s43247-022-00488-5

25. Zhang Z, Poulter B, Feldman AF, Ying Q, Ciais P, Peng S, et al. Recent intensification of wetland methane feedback. Nat Clim Change (2023) 13(5):430–3. doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01629-0

26. Gedney N, Huntingford C, Comyn-Platt E, Wiltshire A. Significant feedbacks of wetland methane release on climate change and the causes of their uncertainty. Environ Res Lett (2019) 14(8):84027. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab2726

27. Thornhill G, Collins W, Olivié D, Skeie RB, Archibald A, Bauer S, et al. Climate-driven chemistry and aerosol feedbacks in CMIP6 Earth system models. Atmos Chem Phys (2021) 21(2):1105–26. doi: 10.5194/acp-21-1105-2021

28. Kleinen T, Gromov S, Steil B, Brovkin V. Atmospheric methane underestimated in future climate projections. Environ Res Lett (2021) 16(9):094006. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac1814

29. Cheng CH, Redfern SAT. Impact of interannual and multidecadal trends on methane-climate feedbacks and sensitivity. Nat Commun (2022) 13(1):3592. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31345-w

30. Zhang Z, Zimmermann NE, Calle L, Hurtt G, Chatterjee A, Poulter B. Enhanced response of global wetland methane emissions to the 2015–2016 El Niño-Southern Oscillation event. Environ Res Lett (2018) 13(7):074009. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aac939

31. Froitzheim N, Majka J, Zastrozhnov D. Methane release from carbonate rock formations in the Siberian permafrost area during and after the 2020 heat wave. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2021) 118(32):e2107632118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2107632118

32. Kleber GE, Hodson AJ, Magerl L, Mannerfelt ES, Bradbury HJ, Zhu Y, et al. Groundwater springs formed during glacial retreat are a large source of methane in the high Arctic. Nat Geosci (2023) 16(7):597–604. doi: 10.1038/s41561-023-01210-6

33. Chen Z, Balasus N, Lin H, Nesser H, Jacob DJ. African rice cultivation linked to rising methane. Nat Clim Change (2024) 14(2):148–51. doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01907-x

34. Laughner JL, Neu JL, Schimel D, Wennberg PO, Barsanti K, Bowman KW, et al. Societal shifts due to COVID-19 reveal large-scale complexities and feedbacks between atmospheric chemistry and climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2021) 118(46):e2109481118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2109481118

35. Peng S, Lin X, Thompson RL, Xi Y, Liu G, Hauglustaine D, et al. Wetland emission and atmospheric sink changes explain methane growth in 2020. Nature (2022) 612(7940):477–82. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05447-w

36. Stevenson DS, Derwent RG, Wild O, Collins WJ. COVID-19 lockdown emission reductions have the potential to explain over half of the coincident increase in global atmospheric methane. Atmos Chem Phys (2022) 22(21):14243–52. doi: 10.5194/acp-22-14243-2022

37. Qu Z, Jacob DJ, Zhang Y, Shen L, Varon DJ, Lu X, et al. Attribution of the 2020 surge in atmospheric methane by inverse analysis of GOSAT observations. Environ Res Lett (2022) 17(9):094003. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac8754

38. Feng L, Palmer PI, Parker RJ, Lunt MF, Bösch H. Methane emissions are predominantly responsible for record-breaking atmospheric methane growth rates in 2020 and 2021. Atmos Chem Phys (2023) 23(8):4863–80. doi: 10.5194/acp-23-4863-2023

39. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT Online Statistical Service (2024). Available at: https://www.fao.org/statistics/en/ .

40. CNBC. Mexico’s state oil company illegally flared more than US$342 million worth of hydrocarbons. CNBC (2023). Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/18/Mexicos-pemex-illegally-flared-over-342-million-worth-of-hydrocarbons.html .

41. Lyon DR, Hmiel B, Gautam R, Omara M, Roberts KA, Barkley ZR, et al. Concurrent variation in oil and gas methane emissions and oil price during the COVID-19 pandemic. Atmos Chem Phys (2021) 21(9):6605–26. doi: 10.5194/acp-21-6605-2021

42. Plant G, Kort EA, Brandt AR, Chen Y, Fordice G, Gorchov Negron AM, et al. Inefficient and unlit natural gas flares both emit large quantities of methane. Science (2022) 377(6614):1566–71. doi: 10.1126/science.abq0385

43. Irakulis-Loitxate I, Guanter L, Maasakkers JD, Zavala-Araiza D, Aben I. Satellites detect abatable super-emissions in one of the world’s largest methane hotspot regions. Environ Sci Technol (2022) 56(4):2143–52. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c04873

44. Deng Z, Ciais P, Tzompa-Sosa ZA, Saunois M, Qiu C, Tan C, et al. Comparing national greenhouse gas budgets reported in UNFCCC inventories against atmospheric inversions. Earth Syst Sci Data (2022) 14(4):1639–75. doi: 10.5194/essd-14-1639-2022

45. Shen L, Gautam R, Omara M, Zavala-Araiza D, Maasakkers JD, Scarpelli TR, et al. Satellite quantification of oil and natural gas methane emissions in the US and Canada including contributions from individual basins. Atmos Chem Phys (2022) 22(17):11203–15. doi: 10.5194/acp-22-11203-2022

46. Sherwin ED, Rutherford JS, Zhang Z, Chen Y, Wetherley EB, Yakovlev PV, et al. US oil and gas system emissions from nearly one million aerial site measurements. Nature (2024) 627(8003):328–34. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07117-5

47. Duren RM, Thorpe AK, Foster KT, Rafiq T, Hopkins FM, Yadav V, et al. California’s methane super-emitters. Nature (2019) 575(7781):180–4. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1720-3

48. Lauvaux T, Giron C, Mazzolini M, d’Aspremont A, Duren R, Cusworth D, et al. Global assessment of oil and gas methane ultra-emitters. Science (2022) 375(6580):557–61. doi: 10.1126/science.abj4351

49. Schuit BJ, Maasakkers JD, Bijl P, Mahapatra G, Van den Berg A-W, Pandey S, et al. Automated detection and monitoring of methane super-emitters using satellite data. Atmos Chem Phys (2023) 23(16):9071–98. doi: 10.5194/acp-23-9071-2023

50. McNorton J, Bousserez N, Agustí-Panareda A, Balsamo G, Cantarello L, Engelen R, et al. Quantification of methane emissions from hotspots and during COVID-19 using a global atmospheric inversion. Atmos Chem Phys (2022) 22(9):5961–81. doi: 10.5194/acp-22-5961-2022

51. International Energy Agency. World Energy Investment 2022 . Paris: IEA (2022). Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2022 .

52. Oh Y, Bruhwiler L, Lan X, Basu S, Schuldt K, Thoning K, et al. CarbonTracker CH4 2023 . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Global Monitoring Laboratory (2023). doi: 10.25925/40JT-QD67

53. Hodson EL, Poulter B, Zimmermann NE, Prigent C, Kaplan JO. The El Niño–Southern Oscillation and wetland methane interannual variability. Geophys Res Lett (2011) 38(8):L08810. doi: 10.1029/2011GL046861

54. Zhu Q, Peng C, Ciais P, Jiang H, Liu J, Bousquet P, et al. Interannual variation in methane emissions from tropical wetlands triggered by repeated El Niño Southern Oscillation. Glob Change Biol (2017) 23(11):4706–16. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13726

55. Schaefer H, Smale D, Nichol SE, Bromley TM, Brailsford GW, Martin RJ, et al. Limited impact of el Niño–Southern Oscillation on variability and growth rate of atmospheric methane. Biogeosciences (2018) 15(21):6371–86. doi: 10.5194/bg-15-6371-2018

56. McNicol G, Fluet-Chouinard E, Ouyang Z, Knox S, Zhang Z, Aalto T, et al. Upscaling wetland methane emissions from the FLUXNET-CH4 eddy covariance network (UpCH4 v1. 0): model development, network assessment, and budget comparison. AGU Adv (2023) 4(5):e2023AV000956. doi: 10.1029/2023AV000956

57. Shaw JT, Allen G, Barker P, Pitt JR, Pasternak D, Bauguitte SJB, et al. Large methane emission fluxes observed from tropical wetlands in Zambia. Global Biogeochem Cycles (2022) 36(6):e2021GB007261. doi: 10.1029/2021GB007261

58. Pandey S, Houweling S, Lorente A, Borsdorff T, Tsivlidou M, Bloom AA, et al. Using satellite data to identify the methane emission controls of South Sudan’s wetlands. Biogeosciences (2021) 18(2):557–72. doi: 10.5194/bg-18-557-2021

59. Riahi K, Schaeffer R, Arango J, Calvin K, Guivarch C, Hasegawa T, et al. Mitigation pathways compatible with long-term goals. In: Shukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdajie R, van Diemen D, McCollum M, et al, editors. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2022) 295–408. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.005

60. Allen MR, Peters GP, Shine KP, Azar C, Balcombe P, Boucher O, et al. Indicate separate contributions of long-lived and short-lived greenhouse gases in emission targets. npj Clim Atmos Sci (2022) 5:5. doi: 10.1038/s41612-021-00226-2

61. Arndt C, Hristov AN, Price WJ, McClelland SC, Pelaez AM, Cueva SF, et al. Full adoption of the most effective strategies to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants can help meet the 1.5°C target by 2030 but not 2050. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2022) 119(20):e2111294119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2111294119

62. Ivanovich CC, Sun T, Gordon DR, Ocko IB. Future warming from global food consumption. Nat Clim Chang (2023) 13(3):297–302. doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01605-8

63. Forster P, Storelvmo T, Armour K, Collins W, Dufresne J-L, Frame D, et al. The Earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai AP, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, et al, editors. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2021) 923–1054. doi: 10.1017/9781009157896.009

64. Collins WJ, Webber CP, Cox PM, Huntingford C, Lowe J, Sitch S, et al. Increased importance of methane reduction for a 1.5 degree target. Environ Res Lett (2018) 13(5):054003. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aab89c

65. Rogelj J, Lamboll RD. Substantial reductions in non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions reductions implied by IPCC estimates of the remaining carbon budget. Commun Earth Environ (2024) 5:35. doi: 10.1038/s43247-023-01168-8

66. United Nations Environmental Programme. Emissions Gap Report . Nairobi: UNEP (2017). Available at: https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2017 .

67. Brazzola N, Wohland J, Patt A. Offsetting unabated agricultural emissions with CO 2 removal to achieve ambitious climate targets. PloS One (2021) 16(3):e0247887. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247887

68. Reisinger A, Geden O. Temporary overshoot: origins, prospects, and a long path ahead. One Earth (2023) 6(12):1631–7. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.11.008

69. Myhre G, Shindell D, Breon F-M, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J, Huang J, et al. Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al, editors. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2013) 659–740. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/climate-change-2013-the-physical-science-basis/anthropogenic-and-natural-radiative-forcing/63EB1057C36890FEAA4269F771336D4D .

70. Ocko IB, Hamburg SP, Jacob DJ, Keith DW, Keohane NO, Oppenheimer M, et al. Unmask temporal trade-offs in climate policy debates. Science (2017) 356(6337):492–3. doi: 10.1126/science.aaj2350

71. Shindell D, Borgford-Parnell N, Brauer M, Haines A, Kuylenstierna JCI, Leonard SA, et al. A climate policy pathway for near- and long-term benefits. Science (2017) 356(6337):493–4. doi: 10.1126/science.aak9521

72. Allen MR, Shine KP, Fuglestvedt JS, Millar RJ, Cain M, Frame DJ, et al. A solution to the misrepresentations of CO 2 -equivalent emissions of short- lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation. npj Clim Atmos Sci (2018) 1(1):16. doi: 10.1038/s41612-018-0026-8

73. Liu S, Proudman J, Mitloehner FM. Rethinking methane from animal agriculture. J Agric Biol Sci CABI (2021) 2(1):1–13. doi: 10.1186/s43170-021-00041-y

74. Ridoutt B. Climate neutral livestock production–A radiative forcing-based climate footprint approach. J Cleaner Prod (2021) 291:125260. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125260

75. Donnison CL, Murphy-Bokern D. Are climate neutrality claims in the livestock sector too good to be true? Environ Res Lett (2024) 19(1):011001. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ad0f75

76. Rogelj J, Schleussner C-F. Unintentional unfairness when applying new greenhouse gas emissions metrics at country level. Environ Res Lett (2019) 14(11):114039. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab4928

77. West JJ, Fiore AM, Horowitz LW. Scenarios of methane emission reductions to 2030: abatement costs and co-benefits to ozone air quality and human mortality. Clim Change (2012) 114(3–4):441–61. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0426-4

78. Shindell DT, Fuglestvedt JS, Collins WJ. The social cost of methane: theory and applications. Faraday Discuss (2017) 200:429–51. doi: 10.1039/C7FD00009J

79. Mar KA, Unger C, Walderdorff L, Butler T. Beyond CO 2 equivalence: the impacts of methane on climate, ecosystems, and health. Environ Sci Policy (2022) 134:127–36. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.03.027

80. Fu B, Gasser T, Li B, Tao S, Ciais P, Piao S, et al. Short-lived climate forcers have long-term climate impacts via the carbon–climate feedback. Nat Clim Change (2020) 10(9):851–5. doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-0841-x

81. Nzotungicimpaye CM, MacIsaac AJ, Zickfeld K. Delaying methane mitigation increases the risk of breaching the 2°C warming limit. Commun Earth Environ (2023) 4(1):250. doi: 10.1038/s43247-023-00898-z

82. Harmsen MJHM, van Vuuren DP, Bodirsky BL, Chateau J, Durand-Lasserve O, Drouet L, et al. The role of methane in future climate strategies: mitigation potentials and climate impacts. Clim Change (2019) 163(3):1409–25. doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02437-2

83. Howarth RW, Jacobson MZ. How green is blue hydrogen? Energy Sci Eng (2021) 9(10):1676–87. doi: 10.1002/ese3.956

84. Ocko IB, Hamburg SP. Climate consequences of hydrogen emissions. Atmos Chem Phys (2022) 22(14):9349–68. doi: 10.5194/acp-22-9349-2022

85. Bertagni MB, Pacala SW, Paulot F, Porporato A. Risk of the hydrogen economy for atmospheric methane. Nat Commun (2022) 13(1):7706. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35419-7

86. Byers E, Krey V, Kriegler E, Riahi K, Schaeffer R, Jarmo K, et al. AR6 Scenarios Database hosted by International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. (2022). Available at: doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5886911

87. Dooley K, Keith H, Larson A, Catacora-Vargas G, Carton W, Christiansen KL, et al. The Land Gap Report 2022 . (2022). Available at: https://landgap.org/2022/report .

88. Hayek MN, Harwatt H, Ripple WJ, Mueller ND. The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land. Nat Sustain (2021) 4(1):21–4. doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-00603-4

89. Weber J, King JA, Abraham NL, Grosvenor DP, Smith CJ, Shin YM, et al. Chemistry-albedo feedbacks offset up to a third of forestation’s CO 2 removal benefits. Science (2024) 383(6685):860–4. doi: 10.1126/science.adg6196

90. International Energy Agency. Global Methane Tracker 2023 . Paris: IEA (2023). Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2023 .

91. Natural Resources Canada. Methane Centre of Excellence (2024). Available at: https://natural-resources.Canada.ca/climate-change/methane-centre-excellence/25656 .

92. Andreae MO, Jones CD, Cox PM. Strong present-day aerosol cooling implies a hot future. Nature (2005) 435(7046):1187–90. doi: 10.1038/nature03671

93. Raes F, Seinfeld JH. New directions: climate change and air pollution abatement: a bumpy road. Atmos Environ (2009) 43(32):5132–3. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.06.001

94. Shindell D, Smith CJ. Climate and air-quality benefits of a realistic phase-out of fossil fuels. Nature (2019) 573(7774):408–11. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1554-z

95. Dreyfus GB, Xu Y, Shindell DT, Zaelke D, Ramanathan V. Mitigating Climate Disruption in Time: a self-consistent approach for avoiding both near-term and long-term global warming. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2022) 119(22):e2123536119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2123536119

96. Riahi K, van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E, Edmonds J, O’Neill B, Fujimori S, et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob Environ Change (2017) 42:153–68. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009

97. Staniaszek Z, Griffiths PT, Folberth GA, O’Connor FM, Abraham NL, Archibald AT. The role of future anthropogenic methane emissions in air quality and climate. npj Clim Atmos Sci (2022) 5(1):1–8. doi: 10.1038/s41612-022-00247-5

98. Jones CD, Frölicher TL, Koven C, MacDougall AH, Matthews HD, Zickfeld K, et al. The Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP) contribution to C4MIP: quantifying committed climate changes following zero carbon emissions. Geosci Model Dev (2019) 12(10):4375–85. doi: 10.5194/gmd-12-4375-2019

99. Palazzo Corner S, Siegert M, Ceppi P, Fox-Kemper B, Frölicher TL, Gallego-Sala A, et al. The Zero Emissions Commitment and climate stabilization. Front Sci (2023) 1:1170744. doi: 10.3389/fsci.2023.1170744

100. Parsons LA, Shindell D, Tigchelaar M, Zhang Y, Spector JT. Increased labor losses and decreased adaptation potential in a warmer world. Nat Commun (2021) 12:7286. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27328-y

101. Saunois M, Stavert AR, Poulter B, Bousquet P, Canadell JG, Jackson RB, et al. The global methane budget 2000–2017. Earth Syst Sci Data (2020) 12(3):1561–623. doi: 10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020

102. Nisbet EG, Fisher RE, Lowry D, France JL, Allen G, Bakkaloglu S, et al. Methane mitigation: methods to reduce emissions, on the path to the Paris agreement. Rev Geophys (2020) 58(1):RG000675:e2019. doi: 10.1029/2019RG000675

103. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet (2019) 393(10170):447–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

104. Babiker M, Berndes G, Blok K, Cohen B, Cowie A, Geden O, et al. Cross-sectoral perspectives. In: Shukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdajie R, van Diemen D, McCollum M, et al, editors. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2022) 1245–1354 . Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ .

105. Harrison MT, Cullen BR, Mayberry DE, Cowie AL, Bilotto F, Badgery WB, et al. Carbon myopia: the urgent need for integrated social, economic and environmental action in the livestock sector. Glob Change Biol (2021) 27(22):5726–61. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15816

106. Global Methane Hub and ClimateWorks Foundation. Global Innovation Needs Assessments: Food System Methane [Technical Report] . ClimateWorks Foundation (2023). Available at: https://www.climateworks.org/ginas-methane/ .

107. Wang Y, Guo X, Huo Y, Li M, Pan Y, Yu S, et al. Toward a versatile spaceborne architecture for immediate monitoring of the global methane pledge. Atmos Chem Phys (2023) 23(9):5233–49. doi: 10.5194/acp-23-5233-2023

108. Pandey S, Gautam R, Houweling S, van der Gon HD, Sadavarte P, Borsdorff T, et al. Satellite observations reveal extreme methane leakage from a natural gas well blowout. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2019) 116(52):26376–81. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1908712116

109. Varon DJ, Jacob DJ, Jervis D, McKeever J. Quantifying time-averaged methane emissions from individual coal mine vents with GHGSat-D satellite observations. Environ Sci Technol (2020) 54(16):10246–53. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c01213

110. Sadavarte P, Pandey S, Maasakkers JD, Lorente A, Borsdorff T, Denier van der Gon H, et al. Methane emissions from superemitting coal mines in Australia quantified using TROPOMI satellite observations. Environ Sci Technol (2021) 55(24):16573–80. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c03976

111. de Foy B, Schauer JJ, Lorente A, Borsdorff T. Investigating high methane emissions from urban areas detected by TROPOMI and their association with untreated wastewater. Environ Res Lett (2023) 18(4):044004. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/acc118

112. Maasakkers JD, Varon DJ, Elfarsdóttir A, McKeever J, Jervis D, Mahapatra G, et al. Using satellites to uncover large methane emissions from landfills. Sci Adv (2022) 8(31):eabn9683. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abn9683

113. Chen Z, Jacob DJ, Nesser H, Sulprizio MP, Lorente A, Varon DJ, et al. Methane emissions from China: a high-resolution inversion of TROPOMI satellite observations. Atmos Chem Phys (2022) 22(16):10809–26. doi: 10.5194/acp-22-10809-2022

114. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances . Washington, DC: U.S. EPA (2023). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg .

115. Climate Impact Lab. Data-Driven Spatial Climate Impact Model User Manual. [Version 092022-EPA] . Climate Impact Lab (2022). Available at: https://impactlab.org/research/dscim-user-manual-version-092022-epa .

116. Rennert K, Errickson F, Prest BC, Rennels L, Newell RG, Pizer W, et al. Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO 2 . Nature (2022) 610(7933):687–92. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05224-9

117. Howard PH, Sterner T. Few and not so far between: a meta-analysis of climate damage estimates. Environ Resour Econ (2017) 68(1):197–225. doi: 10.1007/s10640-017-0166-z

118. Wang T, Teng F. Damage function uncertainty increases the social cost of methane and nitrous oxide. Nat Clim Change (2023) 13(11):–1258–65. doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01803-4

119. Melvin AM, Sarofim MC, Crimmins AR. Climate benefits of U.S. EPA programs and policies that reduced methane emissions 1993–2013. Environ Sci Technol (2016) 50(13):6873–81. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00367

120. Sarofim MC, Waldhoff ST, Anenberg SC. Valuing the ozone-related health benefits of methane emission controls. Environ Resour Econ (2017) 66(1):45–63. doi: 10.1007/s10640-015-9937-6

121. Vandyck T, Keramidas K, Tchung-Ming S, Weitzel M, Van Dingenen R. Quantifying air quality co-benefits of climate policy across sectors and regions. Clim Change (2020) 163(3):1501–17. doi: 10.1007/s10584-020-02685-7

122. Sampedro J, Waldhoff S, Sarofim M, Van Dingenen R. Marginal damage of methane emissions: ozone impacts on agriculture. Environ Resour Econ (2023) 84(4):1095–126. doi: 10.1007/s10640-022-00750-6

123. California Air Resources Board. Cap-and-Trade Program (2023). Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/cap-and-trade-program .

124. Parry I, Black S, Minnett D, Mylonas V, Vernon N. How to cut methane emissions. IMF Staff Climate Note 2022/008 . Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund (2022).

125. Nordhaus W. Projections and uncertainties about climate change in an era of minimal climate policies. Am Econ J Econ Policy (2018) 10(3):333–60. doi: 10.1257/pol.20170046

126. International Energy Agency. Methane emissions remained stubbornly high in 2022 even as soaring energy prices made actions to reduce them cheaper than ever (2023). Available at: https://www.iea.org/news/methane-emissions-remained-stubbornly-high-in-2022-even-as-soaring-energy-prices-made-actions-to-reduce-them-cheaper-than-ever .

127. International Energy Agency. Global Methane Tracker 2024 . Paris: IEA (2024). Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2024 .

128. Buonocore J, Reka S, Yang D, Chang C, Roy A, Thompson T, et al. Air pollution and health impacts of oil & gas production in the United States. Env Res Health (2023) 1(2):021006. doi: 10.1088/2752-5309/acc886

129. Chen C, McCabe DC, Fleischman LE, Cohan DS. Black carbon emissions and associated health impacts of gas flaring in the United States. Atmosphere (2022) 13(3):385. doi: 10.3390/atmos13030385

130. Emanuel RE, Caretta MA, Rivers IIIL, Vasudevan P. Natural gas gathering and transmission pipelines and social vulnerability in the United States. GeoHealth (2021) 5(6):e2021GH000442. doi: 10.1029/2021GH000442

131. O’Connor FM, Johnson BT, Jamil O, Andrews T, Mulcahy JP, Manners J. Apportionment of the pre-industrial to present-day climate forcing by methane using UKESM1: the role of the cloud radiative effect. J Adv Model Earth Syst (2022) 14(10):e2022MS002991. doi: 10.1029/2022MS002991

132. Smith CJ, Kramer RJ, Myhre G, Forster PM, Soden BJ, Andrews T, et al. Understanding rapid adjustments to diverse forcing agents. Geophys Res Lett (2018) 45(21):12–023. doi: 10.1029/2018GL079826

133. Allen RJ, Zhao X, Randles CA, Kramer RJ, Samset BH, Smith CJ. Surface warming and wetting due to methane’s long-wave radiative effects muted by short-wave absorption. Nat Geosci (2023) 16(4):314–20. doi: 10.1038/s41561-023-01144-z

134. Jackson RB, Abernethy S, Canadell JG, Cargnello M, Davis SJ, Féron S, et al. Atmospheric methane removal: a research agenda. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci (2021) 379(2210):20200454. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2020.0454

135. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2018 . Paris: IEA (2018). Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2018 .

136. Alexandratos N, Bruisma J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050–The 2012 Revision, ESA Working Paper No. 12–03 . Rome: Agricultural Development Economics Unit, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2012). Available at: https://www.fao.org/4/ap106e/ap106e.pdf .

137. Robinson S, Mason d’Croz D, Islam S, Sulser TB, Robertson RD, Zhu T, et al. The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (Impact): model description for version 3 [IFRI discussion paper 1483]. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (2015). Available at: https://www.ifpri.org/publication/international-model-policy-analysis-agricultural-commodities-and-trade-impact-model-0 .

138. Bernal B, Murray LT, Pearson TRH. Global carbon dioxide removal rates from forest landscape restoration activities. Carbon Balance Manag (2018) 13(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s13021-018-0110-8

139. Geoffroy O, Saint-Martin D, Bellon G, Voldoire A, Olivié DJL, Tytéca S. Transient climate response in a two-layer energy-balance model. Part II: Representation of the efficacy of deep-ocean heat uptake and validation for CMIP5 AOGCMs. J Climate (2013) 26(6):1859–76. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00196.1

140. Turner MC, Jerrett M, Pope CA, Krewski D, Gapstur SM, Diver WR, et al. Long-term ozone exposure and mortality in a large prospective study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2016) 193(10):1134–42. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201508-1633OC

141. Lim CC, Hayes RB, Ahn J, Shao Y, Silverman DT, Jones RR, et al. Long-term exposure to ozone and cause-specific mortality risk in the United States. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2019) 200(8):1022–31. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201806-1161OC

142. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final report, Apr 2020) . Washington, DC: U.S. EPA (2020). Available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=348522 .

143. Niu Y, Zhou Y, Chen R, Yin P, Meng X, Wang W, et al. Long-term exposure to ozone and cardiovascular mortality in China: a nationwide cohort study. Lancet Planet Health (2022) 6(6):e496–503. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00093-6

144. Liu S, Zhang Y, Ma R, Liu X, Liang J, Lin H, et al. Long-term exposure to ozone and cardiovascular mortality in a large Chinese cohort. Environ Int (2022) 165:107280. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107280

145. Xue T, Wang R, Tong M, Kelly FJ, Liu H, Li J, et al. Estimating the exposure–response function between long-term ozone exposure and under-5 mortality in 55 low-income and middle-income countries: a retrospective, multicentre, epidemiological study. Lancet Planet Health (2023) 7(9):e736–46. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00165-1

146. Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University, Food and Agriculture Programme of the United Nations, and Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical. Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): Population Count Grid . Palisades, NY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (2016). Available at: https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/collection/gpw-v4 .

147. Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 (GBD 2017) . Seattle, WA: The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (2017).

148. Kjellstrom T, Freyberg C, Lemke B, Otto M, Briggs D. Estimating population heat exposure and impacts on working people in conjunction with climate change. Int J Biometeorol (2018) 62(3):291–306. doi: 10.1007/s00484-017-1407-0

149. Foster J, Smallcombe JW, Hodder S, Jay O, Flouris AD, Nybo L, et al. An advanced empirical model for quantifying the impact of heat and climate change on human physical work capacity. Int J Biometeorol (2021) 65(7):1215–29. doi: 10.1007/s00484-021-02105-0

150. International Organization for Standardization. Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment — Assessment of Heat Stress Using the WBGT (Wet Bulb Globe Temperature) index [ISO Standard 7243:2017] . Geneva: ISO (2017). Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/67188.html .

151. Bröde P, Fiala D, Lemke B, Kjellstrom T. Estimated work ability in warm outdoor environments depends on the chosen heat stress assessment metric. Int J Biometeorol (2018) 62(3):331–45. doi: 10.1007/s00484-017-1346-9

152. International Labour Organization. Employment by sex and age — ILO modelled estimates. ILOSTAT Database (2023). Available at: https://ilostat.ilo.org/data .

153. World Bank. World Bank Open Data (2021). Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/ .

Keywords: methane emissions, climate change mitigation, ozone, CO 2 budget, mitigation costs, fossil fuels, net zero, livestock

Citation: Shindell D, Sadavarte P, Aben I, Bredariol TdO, Dreyfus G, Höglund-Isaksson L, Poulter B, Saunois M, Schmidt GA, Szopa S, Rentz K, Parsons L, Qu Z, Faluvegi G and Maasakkers JD. The methane imperative. Front Sci (2024) 2:1349770. doi: 10.3389/fsci.2024.1349770

Received: 05 December 2023; Accepted: 06 June 2024; Published: 30 July 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Shindell, Sadavarte, Aben, Bredariol, Dreyfus, Höglund-Isaksson, Poulter, Saunois, Schmidt, Szopa, Rentz, Parsons, Qu, Faluvegi and Maasakkers. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Drew Shindell, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Follow the science, follow Frontiers in Science